Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs Jagdev Kumar And Anr on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038077
2024:PHHC:038077
CRR-2351-2018 1
253-4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved On: 11.03.2024
Pronounced On: 13.03.2024
CRR-2351-2018 (O & M)
SURINDER SINGH
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
JAGDEV KUMAR AND ANR.
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate with
Mr. Aman Godara, Advocate for respondents.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CRM-24876-2018
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read
with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in filing
the accompanying revision petition No.CRR-2351-2018.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay stands condoned.
CRR-2351-2018
The above-noted revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner-complainant-Surinder Singh, against the judgment of conviction
dated 10.07.2015 and the subsequent order of sentence dated 13.07.2015,
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar, in three
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038077
2024:PHHC:038077
complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(herein after referred to as 'NI Act') as well as the judgment dated 27.10.2017,
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby, the appeal filed by
the petitioners was dismissed, but with a prayer for enhancement of sentence
awarded to the respondents-accused in the above-mentioned complaints.
Respondent No.1, being the sole proprietor of respondent No.2, was sentenced
as under: -
Under Section R.I. for 1 year with compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to
138 NI Act be paid to the complainant within two months. Further
R.I. of 3 months in case of default of payment of
compensation within said period.
(consecutive sentence in three complaints by the trial
Court but modified by lower Appellate Court to run
concurrently)
2. Allegedly, respondent No.1-Jagdev Kumar is the proprietor of
respondent No.2-M/s S.R. Engineering Industries, wherein, the petitioner-
complainant-Surinder Singh was also a partner and vide dissolution dated
10.05.2012, after settlement of accounts, the petitioner retired from the firm
and respondent No.1, became the sole proprietor. As per the private agreement
also dated 10.05.2012, respondent No.1 agreed to pay an amount of
Rs.22,00,000/-, to respondent No.2 qua his share. In order to discharge the
aforesaid liability, respondent No.1 issued a cheque bearing No.582470 dated
10.05.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/- along with two other cheques of the same amount
and similar date, in favour of the petitioner. When presented for encashment,
the said cheques were dishonoured with reason 'Payment Stopped by Drawer'.
Thereupon, the petitioner-complainant served a legal notice upon respondent
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038077
2024:PHHC:038077
no.1 calling upon him to make the payment, qua the settlement amount of
Rs.22,00,000/- but to no avail.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed three respective
complaints under Section 138 of NI Act, including complaint no.1786 of 2013,
in the present case, which were disposed of by the learned trial Court by way of
judgment dated 10.07.2015, wherein, respondent No.1, being the sole
proprietor of accused firm, i.e., respondent No.2 was convicted under Section
138 NI Act and was ordered to undergo sentence as mentioned above.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgement and order, the respondents filed
an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, wherein, the said Court
upheld the judgement of conviction but modified the order of sentence to the
extent that substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently with
the sentence awarded in other complaints No.1788 of 2013 and 1780 of 2013.
5. Thereafter, the respondents aggrieved by their conviction and
sentence have approached this Court by way of CRR-4293, 4298 & 4299 of
2017 against their conviction, whereas, the petitioner-complainant-Surinder
Kumar has approached this Court in CRR-2351-2018 praying for enhancement
of sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant at the outset
submits that the above-mentioned impugned judgments and order are
erroneous, unjust and unwarranted, thereby, are liable to be set aside on the
grounds that the learned Courts below should have taken into account the fact
that the petitioner has been facing agony and harassment since 2012, at the
hands of the respondents. He further submits that considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the respondent concerned should have been awarded
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038077
2024:PHHC:038077
the maximum sentence of 02 years along with a penalty to the extent of double
the amount of cheque.
7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents-accused opposes
the prayer made by the petitioner on the grounds that the said judgement of
conviction itself is liable to be set aside on merits.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the paper-book with their able assistance, this Court finds no merit in the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant.
9. In the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
petition is dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 13, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038077
4 of 4
