IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 Date of decision: 04.09.2025 Gurdyal Singh ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Davinder Kumar ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate and Mr. Sidhant, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Mohit, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the respondents(s).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal whereby the application of the petitioner for summoning of witness has been dismissed in complaint case bearing No.2206 dated 28.11.2014 titled as ‘Davinder Kumar Vs. Gurdyal Singh’ under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Mr. Pankaj Bali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint on ₹

the allegation that the petitioner had availed a friendly loan of 9,00,000/- with an assurance to repay the same in September 2014. In discharge of the said liability, the petitioner is stated to have issued cheque No.000012 dated 24.09.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank, Karnal, Account No.14341000032582, in favour of the complainant. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “Account Closed” vide return memo dated 26.09.2014. A legal notice dated 22.10.2014 was thereafter allegedly served by the respondent-complainant upon the petitioner and eventually a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that after recording of the preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 15.12.2014 and notice of accusation was served on the petitioner on 24.03.2015. The evidence of the complainant was examined. In defence, the petitioner examined Advocate Satish Kumar as DW-1, who deposed with regard to the financial capacity of the petitioner and also proved the marriage card of the children of the petitioner. The defence was thereafter closed vide statement dated 14.07.2016. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 15.07.2016 and order dated 18.07.2016, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and ₹

further directed to pay the cheque amount of 9,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, being CRA-465-2016, instituted on 19.08.2016. The same was allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside on the ground that the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had not been recorded. The case was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to decide the case expeditiously after recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and to confront him with all the incriminating evidence.

4. He further submits that pursuant to the remand, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, on 16.11.2022. In his statement, the petitioner specifically denied the allegations and asserted that he had neither signed the cheque in question nor filled in its body. He further pleaded that no loan had ever been taken from the complainant and that the documents relied upon by the complainant were false and fabricated. The petitioner also sought an opportunity to lead defence evidence by way of examination of a handwriting expert and for obtaining his specimen signatures for comparison. The said application has now been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2022. Impugning the said order, the criminal revision petition has been filed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and does not tak