Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Chand Jain vs Dharam Veer Sharma on 24 July, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM-A-3-MA-2012(O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-3-MA-2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 24.7.2013
Suresh Chand Jain
...Appellant
Versus
Dharam Veer Sharma
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. SK Panwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sheetal Vaishnav, Advocate for the respondent.
****
Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)
CRM No.266 of 2012
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 681 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
CRM-A-3-MA-2012 The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 6.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby the complaint under Section 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed.
As per the complainant, accused took friendly financial assistance of Rs.10,000/- from him on 16.5.2004 and executed a Mohan Brij 2013.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-A-3-MA-2012(O&M) -2 -
pronote and received in this regard on interest @ 2% per month for domestic purposes. In order to discharge his liability accused issued a cheque No.0071853 dated 17.5.2006 drawn on Central Bank of India Jagadhari. But the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 18.5.2006 by the bank of the accused due to Insufficient Funds. Accused has failed to make payment within stipulated period and the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act has been filed before the trial Court. The trial Court acquitted the accused. The signatures on the cheque was admitted. The cheque was filled in afterwards and trial trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was alteration in the original cheque which was not permissible. As per Mark-A the accused had returned some amount to the complainant and despite this fact the cheque was filled in for Rs.10,000/-. The accused has since been acquitted as the cheque was filled in by the complainant himself.
Learned counsel for the respondent informs the Court that suit for recovery of Rs.18,600/- as stated in the pronote has already been dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhari vide order dated 5.4.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.
The Court does not find any defect and illegality in the impugned judgment dated 6.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. Mohan Brij 2013.07.30 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-A-3-MA-2012(O&M) -3 -
Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed.
24.7.2013 (RITU BAHRI)
Brij JUDGE
Mohan Brij
2013.07.30 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh