Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Jain @ Goga Jain vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 March, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:036333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 12.03.2024
CRM-M-12329-2024 (O&M)
Narinder Jain @ Goga Jain .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & another ..........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioner assails order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby revision petition
filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P-4)
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa declining an
application filed by the petitioner for examining hand-writing expert, has
been dismissed.
2. Petitioner - Narinder Jain @ Goga Jain is facing trial in respect of a
complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
wherein the complainant alleges that a cheque amounting to Rs.3 lakhs
issued by the accused/petitioner to the complainant was dishonoured for the
reason 'Total Freeze'.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the
complainant alleges that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.3
VIMAL KUMAR lakhs from her on 01.11.2016 for his personal requirements and had assured
CRM-M-12329-2024 (O&M)
to repay the same within 6 months, but failed to repay the same. However,
ultimately, the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque dated 01.08.2017
favouring the complainant for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which was
dishonoured. It has been submitted that as a matter of fact a blank cheque
was issued by the petitioner to the husband of the complainant for the
purpose of donating some amount to a Saint and as such, even if the said
cheque is dishonoured, it cannot be said that the same had been issued in
discharge of some legally enforceable liability. Learned counsel submitted
that the very fact that the body writing is in a different hand would establish
the case of the petitioner, but the trial Court by declining permission to the
petitioner to get the cheque in question examined from an hand-writing
expert has virtually shut all the doors for the petitioner to establish his
defence. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the impugned orders passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class as well as by the Revisional
Court deserve to be set aside and the petitioner ought to be provided ample
and sufficient opportunity to establish his case. Learned counsel in order to
hammer forth his aforesaid submissions places reliance upon a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar, (2008)
5 SCC 633 as well as a judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-
45064-2019 titled 'Rajesh Rana Vs. Parmod Kumar' decided on 13.06.2022.
4. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and has carefully gone
through the impugned orders as well as other documents annexed with the
petition.
5. The defence being set up by the petitioner is that the cheque in question had
been issued not for the purpose of returning any loan, but for the purpose of
making a donation to a Saint. Such like plea would be required to be
CRM-M-12329-2024 (O&M)
established by cogent and convincing evidence and for which the question as
regards body writing upon the cheque would be immaterial. The judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner surely reiterate the well
settled proposition of law that an accused has to be afforded justifiable
opportunity to lead and establish his defence, but at the same time, it also
goes without saying that the accused would be required to prima facie show
that the witness sought to be examined does have a relevance with the
defence plea sought to be substantiated by the accused or has a potential to
demolish the case of the complainant.
6. In the present case, the mere fact that the body writing on the cheque in
question is not of the accused or of the complainant and is in the hand of
some 3rd person, would not have any bearing either on the case of the
complainant or on the defence plea being set up by the accused. As such,
this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders
and both are accordingly upheld. Finding no merit in the petition, the same
is hereby dismissed.
12.03.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
