Paramjit Kaur vs Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2318

INDERJIT SINGH
Paramjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

Case Details: The case involves Paramjit Kaur (Applicant) vs. Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur (Respondent) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided on 24/07/2018, concerning the dishonour of a cheque due to a signature mismatch. [legal_document]
Core Legal Issue: The primary issue is whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out when a cheque is dishonoured due to an incomplete or different signature, rather than insufficient funds. [legal_document]
Factual Finding on Signature: The cheque was dishonoured with remarks "Drawer's Signature incomplete/differ" because it was signed as "Rajni" while the accused is "Rajinder Kaur," and the cheque belonged to her husband, not the accused. [23000686020011]
Procedural History: The applicant sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, dated 27

JUDGMENT

Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.- Applicant-Paramjit Kaur has filed this application under Section 378(4) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur, challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted.

2. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.

3. As per the record, complainant Paramjit Kaur filed a complaint against accused Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. The brief averments of the complaint as noted by down in the judgment passed by learned JMIC, Patiala, are as under:-

“2. Brief facts as per averments made in the complaint are that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-from the complainant and in order to secure the repayment of said loan amount, accused issued a cheque bearing No.726545 dated 16.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Patiala in favour of complain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2318

INDERJIT SINGHParamjit Kaur – AppellantVersusRajni @ Rajinder Kaur – Respondent

INDERJIT SINGH
Paramjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur – Respondent