226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) CRM-M-26678-2016 Date of decision: 14.02.2025 Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner Versus Manoj Nevatia ...Respondent

2) CRM-M-2733-2016 (O&M)

Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner Versus Manoj Nevatia ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Mona Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in both cases.

Mr. Joban Singh, Advocate for the respondent(s) in both cases.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall decide both the above mentioned petitions as they arise out of a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-26678-2016.

2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of impugned judgment dated 03.06.2016 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in the case stemming from complaint bearing No. COMP-A-39345/2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 04.02.2013, the respondent raised a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- at an interest of 24% per annum from the petitioner and executed a pronote (Annexure P-1) in this regard. A receipt dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) was also provided qua the pronote, in the presence of two witnesses namely Harjit Singh and Ankur Sharma. On 04.07.2013, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, inclusive of interest, became recoverable from the respondent. In order to discharge his legal liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing no. 369703 dated 04.07.2013 for Rs. 2,20,000/- (Annexure P-3) in favour of the petitioner. However, on presentation for encashment, the cheque (supra) was dishonoured vide memo dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure P-4) with the remarks- “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, a notice dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure P-5) was served on the respondent. However, the respondent failed to clear the dues in the stipulated time causing the petitioner to file a complaint dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-6) under Section 138, NI Act. On 07.10.2014, the respondent made a statement(Annexure P-7) before the learned trial Court that a compromise has been effected between the parties and that he would clear the dues within three months, failing which, this statement may be considered as his confession.

4. After the lapse of three months, the respondent moved an application for contesting the complaint (Annexure P-8). After assessing all the evidence placed on record, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 21.01.2015 (Annexure P-9), convicted the respondent and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 03.06.2016 (Annexure P-10), whereby the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that learned trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and convicted the respondent vide judgment dated 21.01.2015 (Annexure P-9). The respondent had himself made a statement before the learned trial Court that he would clear the dues within stipulated time period as per the compromise effected between the parties. In fact, he added that in case he fails to do so, this statement (Annexure P-7) be regarded as a confession. However, not only did the respondent fail to clear the dues but he also maliciously moved an application seeking permission to contest the complaint (supra). As such, the learned lower Appellate Court has fallen into grave error by remanding the matter back to the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2016 (Annexure P-10).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a mere statement(Annexure P-7) undertaking to make the said payment does not satisfy the ingredients to consti