You are on page 1of 23

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crm No. _________ of 2017

In

CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017

Paramdeep Singh ... Appellant.

Versus

Gurpal Singh Respondents.

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Dates Pages Court fee

Urgent Form 08.05.2017

08.05.2017
1. Application under 1-3

Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

08.05.2017
2. Affidavit in Support 4-5

08.05.2017
3. Grounds of Appeal 6-14

08.05.2017
4. Affidavit in Support 15-16

08.05.2017
5. Memo of Parties 17

6. Impugned Judgment 08.02.2017 18-31

passed by Ld. JMIC,

Sri Muktsar Sahib.


7. Annexure A-1 09.06.2011 32-44

(Complaint)

8. Power of Attorney 08.05.2017 45

Total Fee:

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 15.05.2017
(H.S. BRAR & BALRAM SINGH & G.B.S. DHILLON)
P-468/2000 P-10/1993 P-1419/1998

(GURMANDEEP BRAR & ABHISHEK BHARDWAJ)


P-2035/2012 P-2399/2014

(GOLDY JAKHAR & JAITESHWAR SINGH)


P-3268/2015 P-2609/2015
ADVOCATES
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crm No. _________ of 2017

In

CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017

Paramdeep Singh ... Appellant.

Versus

Gurpal Singhkot, Respondents.

TOTAL COURT FEE

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 15.05.2017
(H.S. BRAR & BALRAM SINGH & G.B.S. DHILLON)
P-468/2000 P-10/1993 P-1419/1998

(GURMANDEEP BRAR & ABHISHEK BHARDWAJ)


P-2035/2012 P-2399/2014

(GOLDY JAKHAR & JAITESHWAR SINGH)


P-3268/2015 P-2609/2015
ADVOCATES
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crm No. _________ of 2017
In
CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017
Paramdeep Singh son of Mohinder Singh, R/o Naka No.-4, Malout

Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib ... Appellant.

Versus

Gurpal Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, R/o Village Tamkot, Tehsil and

district Sri Muktsar Sahib Respondents.

Application under section 378 (4) of Code

of Criminal Procedure praying for leave to

file appeal by the Appellant/Complainant

against the impugned judgment of acquittal

dated 23.03.2017 passed by ld. Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the appellant had filed complaint under Section 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act against the

Respondents/accused but they have been wrongly

acquitted vide impugned order dated 23.03.2017 passed

by ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib.


2. That the above mentioned criminal appeal is being filed

against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated

23.03.2017 passed by ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri

Muktsar Sahib in which the Respondents/accused have

been acquitted wrongly and illegally and the same is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. That the Appellant have sufficient material to contest

against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated

23.03.2017 passed by ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri

Muktsar Sahib. The ground of appeal is accompanied with

the present application and the same may be read as part

and parcel to the contents of the present application.

4. That the very material aspects of the case have been

ignored by the Ld. Trial Court and the aforesaid appeal is

likely to succeed on the basis of grounds taken therein.

5. That the Ld. Trial Court has committed a grave legal error

while acquitting the Respondents. The impugned judgment

is totally wrong and illegal.

6. That the reasons given by the Ld. Trial Court are based

upon surmises and conjectures.

7. That appellant has not filed any other similar appeal

against the impugned order either in this Honble Court or


in the Honble Supreme Court of India or any other Court

of Law.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present

application may kindly be allowed and leave to appeal may kindly be

granted against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.03.2017 passed

by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 15.05.2017
(H.S. BRAR & BALRAM SINGH & G.B.S. DHILLON)
P-468/2000 P-10/1993 P-1419/1998

(GURMANDEEP BRAR & ABHISHEK BHARDWAJ)


P-2035/2012 P-2399/2014

(GOLDY JAKHAR & JAITESHWAR SINGH)


P-3268/2015 P-2609/2015
ADVOCATES
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crm No. _________ of 2017

In

CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017

Paramdeep Singh. ... Appellant.

Versus

Gurpal Singh. Respondents.

Affidavit of Paramdeep Singh son of

Mohinder Singh resident of Naka No.

4, Malout Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm


and declare as under:-

1. That the statement of facts made in the accompanying

application are true and correct to my knowledge and as per the

documents placed on record.

2. That all the grounds mentioned in the main application are not

reproduced here for the sake of brevity and the same may be

read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3. That the deponent is fully conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case and the accompanying application is

prepared by the counsel under the instructions of the deponent.


No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therein.

4. That the deponent has not filed any such or similar application

earlier either in this Honble Court or in the Honble Supreme

Court of India.

Place: Chandigarh DEPONENT


Dated: 15.05.2017 (PARAMDEEP SINGH)

VERIFICATION
It is verified that the contents of Para No. 1 to 4 of my above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and

nothing material has been kept concealed therein.

Place: Chandigarh DEPONENT


Dated: 15.05.2017 (PARAMDEEP SINGH)
GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. That the present appeal is being filed by the

Appellant/complainant against the impugned judgment dated

23.03.2017 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri

Muktsar Sahib, whereby the Respondents have been wrongly

acquitted.

2. That the impugned judgment of acquittal is totally wrong,

illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has thus

resulted in miscarriage of justice and the same deserves to be

set aside.

3. That the appellant filed a complaint against the Respondents and

other accused under Section 138 Of NI Act and after hearing and

considering preliminary evidence, Ld. Trial Court summoned

Respondents to face trial under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. That the brief facts of the case are that the complainant advanced

the loan to the respondent on his request that he needs the money

to buy some raw material and this was done so because of the

cordial relation they shared with each other and to which the

complainant promised to pay back the amount in 2-3 days. On

06.10.2014 respondent presented the complainant/appellant with

the check No. 021341 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn in Union

Bank Of India, Branch, Sri Muktsar Sahib in favour of the


complainant. However the check was returned to the complainant

by the bank with a note stating insufficient funds. Then a legal

notice was sent to the respondent to which he responded and said

that he will pay the cheque amount within two months. On

06.01.2015 the accused issued a cheque No. 021346 amounting to

Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant which was again returned with a

note of insufficient funds and thus the complainant dated 27-

02-2015 was made. The true typed copy of the complaint dated

27.02.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.

5. That the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon and over

emphasized on the fact that no document was prepared regarding

the loan given by the complainant to the accused of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

This fact can be explained that there was nothing in written because

of the cordial relation that the complainant/appellant shared with

the respondent as complainant/appellant was his client and had got

made agricultural equipment made from the respondent and did

not feel any requirement to do so.

6. That the ld. Trial Court has also stressed upon the source of income

of the complainant and whether the complainant was in a position

to pay such an amount to the Respondent where as the

complainant/appellant has already stated in his cross-examination

that his source of income was from agriculture and has presented
the court with jamabandis in order to prove himself as an

agriculturist.

7. That the intention of the respondent can be seen as he presented

the complainant/appellant with the cheque twice but both the

times did not have the sufficient amount in his account knowing

well that the complainant/appellant was going to deposit the

cheque in the bank. This shows his intentions to harass the

complainant/appellant but this fact has been completely ignored by

the trial court while making the decision.

8. That the respondent has very well cheated the

complainant/appellant very cleverly but also has misled the Ld. Trial

Court, which resulted in the acquittal of the respondent.

9. That the Ld. Trial Court further ignored the fact that if the

respondent is allowed to go then it will set a wrong statute of taking

the money in advance and later on refusing to pay it back by saying

that they are unable to do so. This finding of the Ld. Trial Court will

send a wrong message to the public and the persons like

respondent will be encouraged to cheat more people in this similar

way.

10. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that once

issuance of cheque and signatures thereon have been admitted by

the respondent then there is no occasion with the Ld. Trial Court to
discharge the respondent from the legal liability. The impugned

judgment is totally wrong and illegal

11.That the Ld. Trial Court has also raised a question that although

there is dishonor of two cheques but the complaint has been

made regarding one check only, but if the trial court would have

stressed a little and would have been able to see that both the

cheques involved are for the same loan in question and the

complainant/appellant had sent a legal notice to the respondent

on first cheque getting dishonored and later on filed a complaint

on dishonor of the second cheque, thus mentioning both the

cheques in question.

12.That the Ld. Trial Court has further stressed upon the fact that the

complainant/appellant has failed to tell the income of the

respondent, this fact bears no value as it was irrelevant as the

there was a cordial relation existed between the

complainant/appellant and respondent and the respondent had

promised the complainant/appellant that he will return the said

amount in 2-3 days t5herefore the complainant/respondent did

not feel any requirement to go into such details and hence gave

him the loan amount.

13.That the findings of the Ld. Trial Court are totally perverse and the

same are based on conjectures and surmises and are contrary to


the law and facts on the file. The Ld. Trial Court has passed the

impugned judgment without application of judicious mind.

14.That the arguments raised and submissions made hereinabove

were also specifically raised, argued and pressed before the Ld.

Trial Court but the same have either not been considered or have

wrongly been rejected.

15.That appellant has not filed any other similar appeal against the

impugned judgment either in this Honble Court or in the

Honble Supreme Court of India or any other Court of Law.

In view of the above, it is most

respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted

and the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2017 passed by

the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib may

kindly be set aside and the Respondents may kindly be

convicted and punished for the charges framed against him,

in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that any other relief

which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper,

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

present case, may also be granted in favour of the

Appellant.
It is further prayed that the filing of the certified

copy of the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2017 of the

Ld. Trial Court and the copy of the complaint may kindly

be exempted, in the interest of justice.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 15.05.2017

(H.S. BRAR & BALRAM SINGH & G.B.S. DHILLON)


P-468/2000 P-10/1993 P-1419/1998

(GURMANDEEP BRAR & ABHISHEK BHARDWAJ)


P-2035/2012 P-2399/2014

(GOLDY JAKHAR & JAITESHWAR SINGH)


P-3268/2015 P-2609/2015
ADVOCATES
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crm No. _________ of 2017

In

CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017

Paramdeep Singh. ... Appellant.

Versus

Gurpal Singh. Respondents.

Affidavit of Paramdeep Singh son of

Mohinder Singh resident of Naka No.

4, Malout Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm


and declare as under:-

1. That the statement of facts made in the accompanying appeal

are true and correct to my knowledge and as per the documents

placed on record.

2. That all the grounds mentioned in the main appeal are not

reproduced here for the sake of brevity and the same may be

read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3. That the deponent is fully conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case and the accompanying appeal is

prepared by the counsel under the instructions of the deponent.


No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therein.

4. That the deponent has not filed any such or similar appeal

earlier either in this Honble Court or in the Honble Supreme

Court of India.

Place: Chandigarh DEPONENT


Dated: 15.05.2017 (PARAMDEEP SINGH)

VERIFICATION
It is verified that the contents of Para No. 1 to 4 of my above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and

nothing material has been kept concealed therein.

Place: Chandigarh DEPONENT


Dated: 15.05.2017 (PARAMDEEP SINGH)
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017

MEMO OF PARTIES

Paramjit Singh son of Partap Singh resident of Malwal Qadim, Tehsil

and District Ferozepur.

...Petitioner.
Versus

Gurpal Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Village Tamkot, Tehsil

and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

.Respondents.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 15.05.2017
(H.S. BRAR & BHUPENDER BENIWAL)
P-468/2000 P-312/2002

(ABHISHEK BHARDWAJ & GOLDY JAKHAR & JAITESHWAR SINGH)


P-2399/2014 P-3268/2015 P-2609/2015
ADVOCATES
COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT
Annexure A-1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SAHIB, SHRI

MUKTSAR SAHIB

Paramdeep Singh son of Mohinder Singh r/o Naka No.4, Malout

Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

..Complainant

Versus

Gurpal Singh son of Sukhdev Singh r/o Vill. Tamkot, Tehsil and

District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

.Accused.

Complaint Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act 9 (as amended upto date)

Sir,

The complainant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the accused was in cordial relation with the complainant

and took Rs.10,00,000/- from my client

on 17-9-2014 through account pay cheque drawn at Union

Bank of India, Sri Muktsar Sahib and in order to discharge his

above said legal liability the accused has issued a cheque

no.021341 dated 6-10-2014 amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-

drawn at Union Bank of India, Branch Sri Muktsar in favour of


the complainant. The accused have assured to the

complainant that the said cheque will be encashed on its

presentation in the bank and the accused has signed the

above said cheque in presence of the complainant.

2. That the complainant is maintaining his account at Union

Bank of India, Branch, Sri Muktsar Sahib and he presented the

above said cheque in his account at Union Bank of India,

Branch, Sri Muktsar Sahib and bank has bounced the cheque

and same returned the cheque to the complainant along with

memo dated 6-10-2014 after dis-honoring the same after

mentioning the reason funds insufficient.

3. That after receiving information from bank legal notice dated

7-10-2014 was issued to the accused on receipt of notice the

accused came to pay the complainant with the request that

the accused will pay the cheque amount within period of two

months, so no action be taken. The complainant has cordial

relations with the accused, so the complainant believed his

assurance and did not take any action against the accused.

4. That on 6-1-2015 the accused issued a cheque no.021346

drawn on Union Bank, Sri Muktsar Sahib for Rs.10,00,000/-

and assured the complainant that on presentation it will be

cashed. That the complainant is maintaining his account at

Union Bank of India, Branch, Sri Muktsar Sahib and he


presented the above said cheque in his account at Union Bank

of India, Branch, Sri Muktsar Sahib and bank has bounced the

cheque and same returned the cheque to the complainant

alongwith memo dated 23-1-2015 after dis-honoring the same

after mentioning the reason funds insufficient.

5. That the accused has intentionally issued the above said

cheque fully knowing the reasons that there is no sufficient

amount in his account, therefore, the accused has committed

the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act and under section 420 IPC.

6. That the complainant has committed an offence under section

138 of N.I. Act, hence he is liable to be punished.

7. That a legal notice was served to the accused

on 29-1-2015 through registered post, but no response has

been given by the accused.

8. That the cheque was issued and dishonoured within the

jurisdiction of this Honble Court. Hence the Honble Court

has the jurisdiction to try and hear the present complaint.

9. That the complainant has not filed any such or similar

complaint before any other court or authority within India.

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the

present complaint be registered by the Honble court and the


action be initiated against the accused and further be tried

and convicted and a fine of double the cheque amount be

imposed and be paid to the complainant as compensation, in

the interest of justice.

Place: 20/2/15

Submitted by:-

Paramdeep Singh son of Mohinder Singh

R/o Naka No.4, Malout Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib

Complainant.

Through Counsel

Sd/- Adv.

List of witnesses

1) Complainant

2) Record keeper /dealing clerk of Union Bank of India, Branch

Sri Muktsar Sahib alongwith complete record of cheque

number 021341 dated 6-10-2014 of Rs.10,00,000/- and

statement of account of the accused and record of memo

dated 6-10-2014, cheque no.021346 dated 6-1-2015 for

Rs.10,00,000/- memo record dated 23-1-2015 and other

relevant record.
3) Record keeper /dealing clerk of State Bank of India, DC Office

Sri Muktsar Sahib alongwith complete record of cheque

number 417801 dated 13-10-2014 of Rs.30,000/- and

statement of account of the accused and record of memo

dated 13-10-2014, cheque return register.

True Copy

Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crm No. _________ of 2017


In
CRM-A- ________ MA of 2017

To
The Registrar,
High Court, Chandigarh.

Title of Case
Paramdeep Singh. ... Appellant.

Versus

Gurpal Singh. Respondents.

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition as an

urgent one in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9, Chapter 3-A,

Rules & Orders of the Honble High Court Chandigarh, Volume (V).

The Grounds of urgency are: - Setting aside of the impugned


judgment is prayed for.

Yours Sincerely

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 15.05.2017
(H.S. BRAR & BHUPENDER BENIWAL)
P-468/2000 P-312/2002

(ABHISHEK BHARDWAJ & GOLDY JAKHAR & JAITESHWAR SINGH)


P-2399/2014 P-3268/2015 P-2609/2015
ADVOCATES
COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT