BRIJESH KUMAR @ NEETU vs MUKESH GARG

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 1090/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1440/2023 BRIJESH KUMAR @ NEETU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate (through videoconferencing). versus MUKESH GARG .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipin Bhasker, Advocate with respondent in person. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. The revisionist/convict has assailed judgment dated 21.09.2023 of the learned appellate court, whereby his conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 17.09.2022 of the trial court was upheld. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the record. 3. Broadly speaking, the case set up by the respondent in his complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was as follows. The revisionist took a friendly loan from the respondent on 25.03.2015, assuring CRL.REV.P. 1090/2023 Page 1 of 5 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3 962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4 0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.07 05:00:04 -07'00' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Date:07.05.2026 17:10:05 to pay back the same in the month of January or February, 2016. Accordingly, in February 2016 towards discharge of the said loan liability, the revisionist issued a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 16.02.2016 in favour of the respondent. But the said cheque on being presented was dishonoured by HDFC Bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds to the credit of the revisionist in his bank account. Since despite service of the statutory n