Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Shakti Lal And Another on 9 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049649
2024:PHHC:049649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
256
CRR-2219-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
Kuldeep Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Shakti Lal and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
1. The petitioner is seeking setting aside of judgment dated
18.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in
Criminal Appeal No.CRA/691/2016 dated 03.12.2016 as well as
judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal in Criminal Complaint
No.NACT/1196/2015 dated 05.08.2015 under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused (hereinafter
referred to as 'accused') is impugning the order dated 03.11.2016 passed
by the learned Trial Court and which was later affirmed by the learned
Appellate Court inter alia on the ground that learned Trial Court and
learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1-
complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') had miserably
failed to prove his case against him by way of any cogent much less
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049649
2024:PHHC:049649
CRR-2219-2023 (O&M) -2-
convincing evidence. Further, the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring
the trustworthy evidence presented by the accused to the effect that
complainant had business dealings (chit fund business) with the
accused; the security cheque given to the complainant by the accused
had been misused by him due to a dispute pertaining to Panchayat
elections, which led to the accused discontinuing his business dealings
with the complainant. It was in the aforementioned background that the
complainant intentionally presented the cheque No.135236 dated
08.06.2015 for Rs.3,39,400/- for encashment so as to cheat the accused
and extract money from him by cooking up a totally fabricated case
against him. It has been further argued that learned Trial Court and the
learned Appellate Court also failed to miserably to appreciate that the
complainant had failed to prove his financial status, as to how he could
have advanced a huge amount of Rs.3,39,400/- to the accused as a
friendly loan; even the ink used in the body of the cheque and the
signatures of the accused were different, which made it absolutely clear
that the security cheque had indeed been misused by the complainant
on account of the strained relations between the parties, following the
Panchayat election.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
4. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 03.11.2016
convicted the accused and sentenced him as under:-
Offence(s) u/s Period of Compensation Period of sentence
sentence(s) in default of
payment of fine
138 of the NI RI for 01 year Rs.3,39,400/- RI for 03 months
Act
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049649
2024:PHHC:049649
CRR-2219-2023 (O&M) -3-
5. The case of the complainant in brief is that the accused
received a friendly loan of Rs.3,39,400/- from the complainant, a
relative of the accused, with the promise to repay it within a specified
time. However, the accused failed to fulfil his obligation. Consequently,
upon repeated requests from the complainant, the accused issued
cheque No.135236 dated 08.06.2015 for Rs.3,39,400/- in favour of the
complainant, assuring its encashment upon presentation to settle the
debt. The complainant attempted to encash the cheque through the bank
of the accused, but it was returned with the remarks "Account Closed"
on the cheque return memo dated 11.06.2015. Subsequently, the
complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.07.2015 to the accused,
demanding payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date
of receipt of the legal notice. However, the accused neither responded
to the notice nor made the payment, leading to the filing of the
complaint in question.
6. After taking into consideration, the preliminary evidence of
the complainant, the learned Trial Court issued summons to the accused
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Upon appearance, the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the complainant testified as
CW1 and corroborated the allegations levelled in the complaint in
question. The entire incriminating evidence was then put to the accused
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., who denied the same and opted to
lead evidence in his defence. However, the accused did not lead any
evidence and concluded his evidence after recording a statement before
the learned Trial Court to the said effect. On the basis of the material on
record and other evidence led, the learned Trial Court passed the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049649
2024:PHHC:049649
CRR-2219-2023 (O&M) -4-
impugned order which as already observed earlier was upheld by the
learned Appellate Court.
7. To substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused,
the complainant who testified as CW1 categorically reiterated that he
was a relative of accused Kuldeep Singh. In September, 2014, accused
Kuldeep had received money from the complainant for the purchase of
a vehicle, a transaction which was endorsed by their entire family. The
complainant also reiterated that accused Kuldeep Singh had given a
pre-filled cheque bearing his signatures to him at his residence. Despite,
the accused having been given ample opportunity, he miserably failed
to refute this testimony of the complainant or even challenge the
authenticity of his signatures on cheque Ex.C1 which was returned by
his bank with the remarks "Account Closed". The entire defence of the
accused rested solely on claiming that the cheque in question had been
given as a security, however, he was not able to substantiate the same
except by his self serving statement.
8. No cogent evidence was led indicating any involvement of
unrecorded money in the loan in question. Rather the complainant who
stepped into the witness box as CW1 categorically acknowledged the
relationship between him and the accused and the delivery of the
cheque book to the accused. Although some discrepancies in ink were
noted in Ex.C1, however, CW1 complainant, attributed this to the
cheque having been pre-filled. The accused was unsuccessful in
countering the said assertion of the complainant by leading any
evidence. The cheque dated 08.06.2015 was presented by the
complainant on 11.06.2015. Had it been intended to be a security
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049649
2024:PHHC:049649
CRR-2219-2023 (O&M) -5-
cheque, the accused would have objected to its presentation, yet for
reasons very strange and rather obvious, he chose to close his bank
account instead, coupled with the fact that he did not even respond to
the legal notice sent to him by the complainant.
9. This Court has no hesitation in affirming the impugned
orders dated 03.11.2016 and 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Trial
Court and the learned Appellate Court respectively by holding that the
complainant had been able to successfully prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt. The complainant has provided compelling evidence
attracting all the essential ingredients to attract the mischief of Section
138 of the NI Act whereas the accused on the other hand, has miserably
failed to rebut the case of the complainant. In view of the
overwhelming evidence presented by the complainant during trial, this
Court does not find any reason to set aside the impugned orders dated
03.11.2016 and 18.07.2023.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
11. In the present case, the petitioner has also filed CRM-
41549-2023 seeking benefit of concurrent running of his sentences in
Criminal Complaint No.NACT/1196/2015 dated 05.08.2015 titled as
'Shakti Lal Vs. Kuldeep Singh' under Section 138 of the NI Act and
Criminal Complaint No.NACT/912/2015 of 09.06.2015 titled as 'Balbir
Singh Vs. Kuldeep Singh' under Section 138 of the NI Act, however, a
perusal of both the files reveal that both the complaints arise out of
different transactions between the petitioner and two different
complainants. Therefore, no ground is made out for concurrent running
of sentences. Accordingly, all pending applications including
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049649
2024:PHHC:049649
CRR-2219-2023 (O&M) -6-
application for concurrent running of sentences-CRM-41549-2023,
stand dismissed.
09.04.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
