TARUN KUMAR SACHDEVA vs JOGINDER SINGH AND ANR — CRM-M/32722/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010945992026

Filing Number

CRM-M/44589/2026

Filing Date

26-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/32722/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-2026

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Category

38.29 - QUASHING PET U/S 482 CRPC GEN IN U/S 138 NI ACT ( 649 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TARUN KUMAR SACHDEVA

    Adv. RAKESH DHIMAN

  2. 2.TARUN KUMAR SACHDEVA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JOGINDER SINGH AND ANR

  2. 2.TARUN KUMAR SACHDEVA

  3. 3.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana partially allowed Tarun Kumar Sachdeva's petition challenging the trial court's order closing his defence evidence in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. Although the court found the accused had been granted nine effective opportunities and examined eight witnesses over an extended period, it granted one final opportunity to examine himself as a witness and produce remaining witnesses, after noting he had been permitted but never actually examined. The petitioner was ordered to obtain proper summons for official witnesses and burdened with Rs. 10,000 costs payable to the complainant, with no further extensions permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/32722/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana partially allowed Tarun Kumar Sachdeva's petition challenging the trial court's order closing his defence evidence in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. Although the court found the accused had been granted nine effective opportunities and examined eight witnesses over an extended period, it granted one final opportunity to examine himself as a witness and produce remaining witnesses, after noting he had been permitted but never actually examined. The petitioner was ordered to obtain proper summons for official witnesses and burdened with Rs. 10,000 costs payable to the complainant, with no further extensions permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case