IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-26869-2024 (O&M)

Reserved on:-12.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 13.02.2026 Uploaded on:-16.02.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Karnail Singh Ahhi, Advocate Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Anil Bhateja, Advocate for respondent No.2 -.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the orders dated 24.04.2024, whereby the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence by the petitioner in criminal appeal bearing No. CRA/156/2019 dated 10th December 2019 titled as Sandeep Singh versus Lakhbir Singh before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, arising out of complaint bearing No. NACT/134/2018 dated 13.04.2018 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran vide judgment dated 18.11. 2019, stands dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran.

2. The present proceedings arise out of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner and his wife had entered into an agreement to sell their land to the complainant on 17.09.2016 and possession was delivered. However, the sale deed was not executed, leading to a compromise whereby the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of ₹55,00,000/- to the complainant and issued three post-dated cheques. In discharge of the said liability, cheque bearing No. 000017 dated 20.02.2018 for ₹15,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank was presented for encashment but was dishonoured with the remarks “Stop Payment.” Despite service of legal notice dated 23.03.2018 calling upon the petitioner to make payment within the statutory period, no payment was made, and consequently, complaint No. NACT/134/2018 dated 13.04.2018 was instituted by respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2019 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal, which is presently pending adjudication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran.

4. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. praying therein for permission to lead additional evidence, including placing on record the attested copy of affidavit dated 15.01.2018, inquiry report bearing No. 644-5A dated 20.07.2020 and certified copies of statements of Daljit Singh and Bikramjit Singh, and to examine the said witnesses along with the concerned police official in support of his defence.

5. However, the said application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide impugned order dated 24.04.2024, which is under challenge in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of power for taking additional evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner was wrongly convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has already preferred an appeal against the said conviction.

7. It is further contended that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to lead additional e