Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Grover vs Ram Niwas on 5 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155042
2023:PHHC:155042
CRM-A-252-MA-2015(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 CRM-A-252-MA-2015(O&M)
Date of Decision : December 05, 2023
SANDEEP GROVER
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
RAM NIWAS
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate
for the applicant.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
CRM-43747-2023
1. For valid and good reasons assigned in the application, the
same is allowed. The application is ordered to be restored to its original
number, and taken on board for hearing today itself.
CRM-5509-2015
2. Considering the valid, and, good reasons, as mentioned in
the application for condoning the apposite delay of 172 days, therefore,
the application is allowed.
3. Delay of 172 days in filing the application, is condoned.
Main case
4. The applicant-complainant has filed the present application
under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for the grant of special leave to appeal
against the order of acquittal dated 9.6.2014 recorded by the learned
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155042
2023:PHHC:155042
CRM-A-252-MA-2015(O&M) -2-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad whereby the respondent-accused
was acquitted of the notice of accusation served upon him vide order
dated 20.9.2012.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is
enough material on record, which raise a statutory presumption in favour
of the complainant and which is required to be rebutted by the
respondent-accused. However, the respondent-accused has failed to rebut
the same, whereas, the learned trial Court has not considered this fact.
6. This Court has examined the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court, wherein, the learned trial Court found the
following deficiencies in the evidence led by the applicant-complainant,
which read as under:-
"(i) The fatal discrepancy in the case of complainant is
that this complaint has been filed by one Sandeep
Grover son of Sh. Sham Sunder, in his personal
capacity, whereas in fact the cheque was issued in
the name of some M/s Fatehabad. Auto Meaning
Traders, thereby that, in fact the firm M/s Auto
Traders, Fatehabad was the aggrieved persons and
the said firm should have filed this complainant
through one of its agent or partner. In this manner,
the very fundamentals of complaint have turned
vicious.
(ii) The said Sandeep Grover has claimed himself to
be partner of the firm Fatehabad. M/s Auto
Traders, But surprisingly, no such partnership-
deed disclosing him as one of the partners of the
said firm has been proved on the record. such
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155042
2023:PHHC:155042
CRM-A-252-MA-2015(O&M) -3-
document Surprisingly, has no even been marked
on the record, so that if a case on merits might
have been found otherwise in favour of the firm
M/s Auto Traders, Fatehabad, a judicial notice of
the same could have been taken. This is another
fatal discrepancy in the case of complainant.
(iii) It was essential on the part of so-called
complainant Sandeep Grover to prove by
documentary evidence that some loan was
advanced accused in in favour of the February,
2009, as claimed. But surprisingly, no even a
single document in this regard, what to talk of a
loan file has been proved on record. complainant
the As such, where the Sandeep Grover (CW-1)
has failed to put forth even bahi claimed to have
been maintained in this regard, the said projection
of fact stands belied or at least 'not proved'.
(iv) Last, but not the least, version of complainant the
in evidence is that the said amount of Rs.95,000/-
constituted the principal amount of Rs. 70,000/-
and interest amount of Rs. 25,000/- but these facts
do not form part of averments the fundamental
nothing where is mentioned as to on what account,
the liability of Rs.95,000/- was outstanding
towards the accused."
7. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to
point out any infirmity or illegality in the above findings. The impugned
order, vide which the respondent-accused was discharged, is for all
reasons, tantamount to acquittal.
8. Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155042
2023:PHHC:155042
CRM-A-252-MA-2015(O&M) -4-
lightly, merely because other view is possible. Upon passing of an order
of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets
reinforced and strengthened, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Harijana Thirupala vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2002) 6
SCC 470 as well as held by this Court in CRM-A-2456-MA-2018 titled
"State of Haryana Vs. Shyam Sunder and in CRM-A-2941-2019 titled
"State of Haryana Vs. Vishal".
9. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere
with the order of acquittal. In sequel, the application for leave to appeal
is hereby declined, it being bereft of merit, and, the impugned order of
acquittal, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad is
hereby upheld.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
December 05, 2023 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155042
4 of 4
