SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 26505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DAYAL DOGRA – Appellant
Versus
MANISH ARORA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-54140-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-54140-2025

Dayal Dogra

...Petitioner

Versus

Manish Arora

...Respondent

1. Date when Order was reserved 23.12.2025

2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 30.01.2026

3. Date of uploading Order 30.01.2026

4. Whether operative part or full Order FULL

is pronounced

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full NOT APPLICABLE

order, and reasons thereof

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate,

Amicus Curiae.

None for the petitioner.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner – Dayal Dogra has filed the instant petition, under

Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing/setting aside impugned order

dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, District Patiala, in Criminal

Complaint No. COMA-557-2022 (Annexure P-1), titled as “Manish

Arora v. Dayal Dogra”, allowing the application under Section 143-A of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’), filed by

the respondent/complainant, and directing the petitioner to pay interim

PRASHANT KAPOOR

2026.01.30 17:40

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-54140-2025 2

compensation to the tune of 10% of the cheque amount to the

complainant within 60 days from the date of order.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the

respondent/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the NI

Act, by asserting that he was having cordial relation with the

petitioner/accused and extended a friendly loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to him.

The petitioner/accused assured the complainant to return the amount after

two months. The petitioner/accused, to discharge his legal and

enforceable liability, issued two cheques, bearing numbers 349339, dated

23.06.2022, and 349340, dated 07.07.2022, amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-

each (total Rs. 10,00,000/-), of Punjab National Bank, Sector 26-B,

Chandigarh. When the said cheques were presented to the bank, the same

were returned on 27.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 respectively, with

endorsement “Drawee Bank and Branch”. On the assurance given by

the petitioner, the said cheque was again presented to the bank. This time

also, both the cheques were again dishonoured on 11.08.2022, for the

same reason i.e. “Drawee Bank and Branch”

After filing of the complaint dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure

P-1), Trial Court took cognizance and ordered summoning of the

petitioner/accused to face trial for an offence punishable under Section

138 of the NI Act. Thereafter, an application, dated 19.07.2024

(Annexure P-2), under Section 143-A of the NI Act, was filed by the

respondent/complainant seeking interim compensation.

Reply, dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), to the said

application was filed by the petitioner, by taking the following stand:-

PRASHANT KAPOOR

2026.01.30 17:40

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-54140-2025 3

“PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That present application of applicant/complainant is

not maintainable in the present form at this stage as

evidence of complainant is yet to come and till today

applicant/complainant has failed to adduce any

evidence in support of version of his complainant set

up in his complaint. As such application of the

complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score

only. Moreover provisions of 143-A of Negotiable

Instrument Act is not mandatory as per law.

ON MERITS

1) That Para no. 1 of the application is correct

regarding the pendency of the complaint. It is

mentioned here that till today complainant has failed

to adduce any evidence in support of his claim set up

by him in the present complaint and complainant has

filed the present application in order to harass the

accused. No affidavit of evidence of produced by

applicant in the said case.

2) That Para no. 2 of the application is specifically

denied. Complaint of the complainant is based on

false and frivolous facts and complainant set up

concocted story in para no. 2 of his application. Rest

of contents of this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top