Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : CRM-M-25289-2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/06/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking directions to the respondent authorities to call for the status report on the representation dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) submitted by the petitioner regarding the alleged fraud played by the private repondents.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner got acquainted with respondent No. 5 who had apprised that his father is posted in the security of Chief Minister, Punjab and that on the asking of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 told that upon incurring an expense of Rs. 8 lacs, son-in-law of the petitioner can be secured an appointment in Punjab Police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that relying upon the said assurance, an amount of Rs. 8 lacs was alleged to have been paid to the private respondents in different installments in the year 2017. It is further contended that when nothing happened and time elapsed, the petitioner started demanding his money back in the year 2019. Eventually in the year 2020, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was returned by the said respondents to the petitioner and that for balance amount, two cheques of Rs. 2 lacs each dated 23.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank Paniar, District Gurdaspur have been issued. He submits that the aforesaid cheques were not presented as the respondents requested the petitioner not to present the said cheques unless they ask the petitioner to do so. It is further contended that eventually upon presentation of the cheques in December 2020, the same were dishonoured. It is contended that relying on assurance made by the respondent that the payment shall be made he did not institute any complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is further contended that the said respondent has thus committed a fraud with the petitioner and that a representation in this regard has already been submitted to the DSP, Gurdaspur, however, no action has been taken thereupon.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the petition.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031