IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM____________OF 2024

IN

CRM-A__________MA-2024

Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer age about 46 Years R/o

130/19, Gali No. 1A, Parnala Road, DharamVihar,

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana

….Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar Son of Sh. Satbir Singh R/o H.No.3, Dev Nagar,

Near, ITI, Bahadurgarh, District, Jhajjar, Haryana.

…. Respondent

Application Under Section 378 (4) of Criminal

Procedure Code for grant of leave to file the

appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the appeal of the appellant is likely to succeed

in view of the grounds taken therein and the same may kindly
be read as part and parcel of this application for granting leave

to appeal.

2. That the complainant/appellant had filed a complaint

under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act in which

Accused/respondent was summoned to face the trial and

during the trial present complaint was dismiss by the Ld. JMIC,

(Exclusive Court Under N.I. Act) Bahadurgarh for want of

prosecution appearance.

3. That after the filing of the complaint before the Ld.

Trial Court the applicant/complainant was appearing on each

and every date of hearing without any failure.

4. That on 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/appellant was noted down the wrong date i.e.

19.03.2023 instead of 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/complainant was appear on 19.03.2023 before the

Ld. Trial Court, then he come to know that complaint has

already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.01.2023.

after that counsel for the complainant tried to contact to the

complainant but complainant has suffered with the paralytic

attack. So due to said reason he could not attend the court

proceeding on that day.

5. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. JMIC,

Bahadurgarh, is not a reasoned order and is not bassed on

proper appreciating of facts. Therefore, in the present case of

the appellant deserves grant of leave to file the appeal in this

Hon’ble Court.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this

application may kindly be allowed and leave may be granted to

the applicant/Appellant/complainant to file the appeal in this

Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: .02.2024 (JEEVAN GAUTAM & )

ADVOCATES
Counsel for applicant/Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A__________MA-2024

Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer age about 46 Years R/o

130/19, Gali No. 1A, Parnala Road, DharamVihar,

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana ….Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar Son of Sh. Satbir Singh R/o H.No.3, Dev Nagar,

Near, ITI, Bahadurgarh, District, Jhajjar, Haryana.

…. Respondent

Affidavit of Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer

age about 46 Years R/o 130/19, Gali No. 1A,

Parnala Road, DharamVihar, Bahadurgarh,

District Jhajjar, Haryana .Adhar No.

Mobile No.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the appeal of the appellant is likely to succeed

in view of the grounds taken therein and the same may kindly
be read as part and parcel of this application for granting leave

to appeal.

2. That the complainant/appellant had filed a complaint

under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act in which

Accused/respondent was summoned to face the trial and

during the trial present complaint was dismiss by the Ld. JMIC,

(Exclusive Court Under N.I. Act) Bahadurgarh for want of

prosecution appearance.

3. That after the filing of the complaint before the Ld.

Trial Court the applicant/complainant was appearing on each

and every date of hearing without any failure.

4. That on 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/appellant was noted down the wrong date i.e.

19.03.2023 instead of 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/complainant was appear on 19.03.2023 before the

Ld. Trial Court, then he come to know that complaint has

already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.01.2023.

after that counsel for the complainant tried to contact to the

complainant but complainant has suffered with the paralytic

attack. So due to said reason he could not attend the court

proceeding on that day.

5. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. JMIC,

Bahadurgarh, is not a reasoned order and is not bassed on

proper appreciating of facts. Therefore, in the present case of

the appellant deserves grant of leave to file the appeal in this

Hon’ble Court.

Chandigarh.
Dated: .02.2024 Deponent
Verification:

Verified that the contents of paragraph 1 to 5 of

the above mentioned affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therein.
Chandigarh.
Dated: .02.2024 Deponent
 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. That the present appeal has been filed against vide

order dated 19.01.2023 passed by Smt. GarimaYadav,

JIMC, (Executive Court under NI Act) Bahadurgarh, in

complaint No. 651 of 2019, dated 22.08.2019, titled as

Santosh Kumar VsPawan Kumar, Whereby Ld. Trial Court

was pleased to dismiss the complaint for want of

prosecution appearance.

2. That the brief facts of the case is that complainant

Santosh Kumar has initiated the legal proceedings against

the accused person in the competent court of law and

complainant and accused known to each other and have

friendly relation between each other and the

respondent/accused need some financial assistance for

two months for his domestic purpose. So the

respondent/accused requested the complainant for

borrowed a loan/debt of Rs.2, 38,000/- (Rupees two lakh

thirty eight thousand only) in cash from in the month of

February, 2019.
3. That afterlaps of the period of two months the

complainant demanded his aforesaid amount. So in order

to discharge of his liability the respondent/accused issued

a cheque bearing No. 000002 dated 30.05.2019 of

amount of Rs.2,38,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Eight

thousand only) drawn on HDFC Bank Bahadurgarh vide

A/c No. 50100238545800.

4. That as per the instructions of the respondent

/accused the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque

bearing No. 000002 dated 30.05.2019 in his account No.

50100238545800 with the Central Bank of India

Bahadurgarh for encashment, which was forwarded to

respondent/accused banker for collection of payment, but

the aforesaid cheque was dishonored with the remarks

“Funds Insufficient” and was returned unpaid vide cheque

return memo dated 0606.2019. The complainant gave

information in this regard to the respondent/accused than

the respondent/accused gave assurance to the

complainant to present this cheque again and

respondent/accused promise that cheque will not

dishonored this time. But as per the instruction

 complainant again presented the above said cheque for

encashment in his account with Central Bank of India,

but this time also the above said cheque dishonored with

the marks “Funds insufficient” return vide memo dated

02.07.2019.

5. That the complainant informed to the

respondent/accused regarding the fate of

aforesaidcheque which was again dishonored with the

same remarks, complainant again demanded the payment

in cash which is legally recoverable and enforceable debt

of respondent/accused but the respondent/accused make

a one excuses and other excuses with the deaf ear.

Because the respondent/accused has issued the aforesaid

cheque to the complainant intentionally, deliberately and

melafide intention with intent to cheat the complainant

and to defraud him knowingly, because

respondent/accused know that there is no sufficient funds

in his account with the bank. The respondent/ accused

have thus cheated the complainant and have played a

calculated fraud with the complainant. The

respondent/accused have committed an offence

 punishable u/s 138 of NI act 1881 R/w section 420 IPC for

which the respondent/accused is liable to be prosecuted

and punished.

6. That thereafter a legal notice was given to the

respondent/accused at his address by Regd. Postdated on

20.07.2019 vide Regd. Slip Nos. RH385490760IN dated

29.07.2019 and the same is deemed to has been served

upon the accused/respondent, but he did not even reply

to the legal notice and deliberately did not make the

payment of the cheque amount so far and copies of legal

notice and postal receipt have already been annexed with

the main complaint before Ld. JMIC, (Exclusive Court

under NI Act) Bahadurgarh.

7. That when no money was returned by the

accused/respondent , the applicant/complainant left with

no other alternative remedy had to file a complainant

before Ld. JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI Act)

Bahadurgarh. Under saction 138/141 of Negotiable

Instrument Act 1881. A copy of complaint dated

22.08.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1

8. That after the filing of the complaint before Ld. JMIC,

(Exclusive Court under NI Act) Bahadurgarh,

theapplicant/complainant was appearing on each and

every date of hearing without any failure.

9. That on 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/complainant was noted down the wrong date i.e.

19.03.2023 instead of 19.01.2023 and on 19.03.2023 the

counsel for the applicant/complainant appear before Ld.

JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI Act) Bahadurgarh, then

he came to know that complaint has already dismissed on

19.01.2023 for want of prosecution appearance,

complainant also not appear on the date fixed, because

complainant already suffered with the paralytics attack.

So due to said reason complainant could not appear on

the date fixed. A copy of Medical Prescription Card is

annexed herewith as Annexure A-2.

10. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. JMIC,

(Exclusive Court under NI Act) Bahadurgar is not a

reasoned order and is not based on proper appreciation of

facts, hence is liable to be set-aside and the complaint

filed by the complainant/applicant may kindly be restored

and respondent/accused is liable to be prosecuted and

punish on the following grounds:-

A) Because order passed by the Ld. JMIC, (Exclusive

Court under NI Act) Bahadurgarh is non-reasoned

and is not passed on proper appreciation of the

facts and the court below has failed to understand

that the dismissed of the complaint will lead to

acquittal of the accused/respondent henceit

becomes necessary to restore back the complaint.

B) Because Court below clearly overlook the fact that

the applicant/complainant was keeping the track

of the case for more than 4 years and did not fail

to appear on any of the date of hearing and at this

stage the Ld. JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI

Act) Bahadurgarh passed the impugned order

dated 19.01.2023 for want of appearance of the

counsel as well as complainant, hence the court

has failed to do justice with the complainant.

C) Because the Ld. JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI

Act) Bahadurgarh also ignored the fact that the

respondent/accused has committed an offence of

cheating with the applicant/complainant, despite

of this the complainant in the case and his

appearance was necessary. Still his complaint got

dismissed for want of prosecution appearance of

the complaint, whereas the complainant was

putting his appearance since 22.08.2019 i.e. about

4 years and now the entire efforts of the

applicant/complainant to bring the criminal

proceedings to its logical end about 4 years would

result in futility and he would be condemned

unheard without getting effective opportunity of

being heard on the merits of the controversy. On

the other hand, a single default on the part of the

complainant would ensure to the benefit of the

accused in escaping his liability subject matter of

the criminal proceedings. Thus it becomes

necessary to restore back the complaint to its

original stage and prosecute the

accused/respondent for committing fraud with the

complainant/applicant and issuing cheque to them

 in return despite of having insufficient funds in his

account.

D)In a similar case i.e., ChanderDevVs Raj Kumar

Bhatia, CRM-M 33896 of 2011, the Hon’ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana has held,

“Now coming to the facts of the case in hand the

criminal complaint was filed in April 2004. The

accused was ordered to be summoned after

recording evidence during preliminary inquiry. The

complaint was dismissed in default due to the

absence of the complainant on 10.06.2008. There

is nothing to suggest that the complainant earlier

also absented from the proceedings much less his

conduct lacked bonafide. In case, the order passed

by the trail magistrate is not set aside, the entire

efforts of the complainant to bring the criminal

proceedings to its logical end for the last four

years would result in futility and he would be

condemned unheard without getting effective

opportunity of being heard on the merits of the

controversy. On the other hand, a single default

on the part of the complainant would ensure to the

benefit of the accused in escaping his liability

subject matter of the criminal proceedings. No

doubt, it would have been better if the

complainant had been advised properly to

straightway file an appeal, in place of initially filing

an application for restoration of the complainant,

then the revision before the court of Sessions and

now the present petition under Section 482 of the

code, in accordance with law. The present

petitioner is a victim of wrong legal advice on a

number of occasions and he cannot be permitted

to suffer any longer in the circumstances of the

present case. In this view of the matter, I am of

the considered opinion that it is a fit case, where

the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under

section 482 of the code in place of relegating the

petitioner to his alternative remedy of filing an

application for special leave before this Court at

this belated stage. In this view of the matter, I

find force in the contention of the petitioner that

 the petitioner can be allowed to maintain a petition

under Section 482 of the code, despite existence

of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal.

The complainant became absent from the

proceedings on 10.06.2008. Just after four days

on 14.06.2008, he submitted an application for

restoration of the complaint. A single default on

the part of the complainant cannot be allowed to

entail serious consequence of termination of the

proceedings.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is

allowed. Consequently, orders dated 10.06.2008

(Annexure P2), passed by the Additional Judicial

Magistrate, Sirsa and dated 11.08.2011(Annexure

P2), Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,

Sirsa are ordered to be set aside and the

complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be

restored at the stage from where it was dismissed.

E) In a similar case i.e., Rishi Sharma versus

Akhilesh Sharma, CRM-M 31560 of 2014

decided on 24.02.2015 the Hon’ble Punjab &

Haryana High court has held,

“I have heard counsel for the petitioner and

perused the records. The present petition has

been preferred by the petitioner by invoking

provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C when as a matter

of fact, the appropriate remedy to be availed in

the circumstances of the present case is to file an

appeal under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. as dismissal

of the complaint under section 256 Cr.P.C.

amounts to acquittal of the accused. However, the

question of maintainability of proceedings under

section 482 Cr.P.C. is no longer res Integra in the

light of judgment of this Court ChanderDevVs Raj

Kumar Bhatia, CRM-M 33896 of 2011, decided on

11.12.2013 wherein reference has been made to

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of

India, Punjab state warehousing Corporation

FaridkotVursus M/s ShriDurgaJi Traders and

others, 2012 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal).

The criminal proceedings were almost at its fag

end when the same have culminated in its

dismissal for want of presence of the petitioner on

22.07.2014. There is nothing on record to suggest

that the trail Magistrate adverted to the issue if

presence of the complainant/petitioner was

necessary for progress in proceedings or the

situation did not justify the case being adjourned

to some other date awaiting his appearance.

Perusal of the impugned order would make it

evident that on 22.07.2014, the case was fixed for

recording statement of the complainant was not

necessary as it is for the court to put all

incriminating circumstances to the accused to

provide him an opportunity of tendering his

explanation thereto.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The

associated Cement Company Limited Vs.

Keshvanand, 1998 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 309.

has dealt the purpose of including a provision like

Section 247 in the old Code or 256 in the new

Code. On a detailed consideration of the relevant

provisions, the Court has held in paras 15 to 17,

quoted thus:-

“15. What was the purpose of including a

provision like Section 247 in the old code (or

section 256 in the new code). It affords some

deterrence against dilatory tactics on the part of a

complainant who set the law in motion through his

complaint. An accused who is per force to attend

the court on all posting days can be put to much

harassment by a complainant if he does not turn

up to the court on occasions when his presence in

necessary. The Section, therefore, affords a

protection to an accused against such tactics of

the complainant. But that does not mean if the

complainant is absent, court has a duty to acquit

the accused in invitum.

16. Reading the section in its entirety would

reveal that two constraints are imposed on the

court for exercising the power under the section.

First is, if the court thinks that in a situation it is

proper to adjourn the hearing then the Magistrate

shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the

magistrate considers that personal attendance of

the complainant is not necessary on that day the

magistrate has the power to dispense with

attendance and proceed with case. When the court

notices that complainant is absent on a particular

day the court must consider whether personal of

the case and also whether the situation does not

justify the case being adjourned to another date

due to any other reason. If the situation does not

justify the case being adjourned the court is free

to dismiss the compliant and acquit the accused.

But if the presence of the complainant on that day

was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step

of axing down the complaint may not be a proper

exercise of the power envisaged in the section.

The discretion must therefore be exercised

judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of

administration of criminal justice.

17. When considering the situation of this case as

on 24.8.1996, from the facts narrated above, we

have no manner of doubt that the Magistrate

should not have resorted to the axing process,

particularly since the complainant was already

examined as a witness in the case besides

examining yet another witness for the

Prosecution.”

In view of authoritative enunciation of law laid

down in the aforesaid extract, it is incumbent upon

the trail court to examine whether personal

attendance of the complainant is essential on that

day for progress in the case and also whether the

situation does not justify the case being adjourned

to another date due to any other reason. As has

been mentioned here before, the court has not

exercised which was being prosecuted by the

petitioner without any default and thus deprived

him an opportunity to bring the criminal

proceedings to its logical end. The impugned order

 has resulted in miscarriage of justice, therefore,

cannot be allowed to sustain.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove,

the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set

aside and criminal Complaint No. 769 of 2012

dated 16.2.2012 is restored on the board of the

trail court at the stage at which the same was

dismissed.”

11. That no other equally and efficacious remedy is

available to petitioner except to approach this Hon’ble

court through present appeal.

12. That the appellant has not filed any such or similar

appeal in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India.

Prayer

In view of the submissions made above, it is,

therefore, most respectfully prayed that the impugned

order dated 19.01.2023 passed by Smt. GarimaYadav, Ld.

JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI Act) Bahadurgarh, in

complaint no. 651/2019, dated 22.08.2019, titled as

Santosh Kumar versus Pawan Kumar, may kindly be set

aside in the interest of justice and the original complaint

may kindly be ordered to be restored back to its original

position so that the respondent/accused may be punished

as per law.

It is further prayed that the appellant may kindly be

exempted from filing certified/typed copies of Annexure

A-1 and A-2 in the interest of Justice equity and fair play.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: 0 .02.2024

(JEEVAN GAUTAM &

Advocates

Counsel for the Appellant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A__________MA-2024

Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer age about 46 Years R/o

130/19, Gali No. 1A, Parnala Road, DharamVihar,

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana

….Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar Son of Sh. Satbir Singh R/o H.No.3, Dev Nagar,

Near, ITI, Bahadurgarh, District, Jhajjar, Haryana.

…. Respondent

Affidavit of Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. RamSumer

age about 46 Years R/o 130/19, Gali No. 1A,

Parnala Road, DharamVihar, Bahadurgarh,

District Jhajjar, Haryana .Adhar No.

Mobile No.
 I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the appellant is filing the afore-captioned petition

before this Hon’ble Court and is hopeful of its success.

2. That the contents of Para No. 1 to 12 of the appeal are

true to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has

been concealed therein.

3. That the appellant has not filed any such or similar

petitioneither in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India.

CHANDIGARH
DATED: .02.2024 DEPONENT
Verification:

Verified that the contents of Para No. 1 to 3 of the affidavit are

true to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has

been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH

DATED: .02.2024 DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A__________MA-2024

Case No. : COMA-651/2019

Date of Instt: 22.08.2019
Date of Decision: 19.01.2023

MEMO OF PARTIES

Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer age about 46 Years R/o

130/19, Gali No. 1A, Parnala Road, DharamVihar,

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana

….Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar Son of Sh. Satbir Singh R/o H.No.3, Dev Nagar,
Near, ITI, Bahadurgarh, District, Jhajjar, Haryana.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: 0 .02.2024 (JEEVAN GAUTAM &

Advocates

Counsel for the Appellant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM__________OF 2024

IN

CRM-A__________MA-2024

Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer age about 46 Years R/o

130/19, Gali No. 1A, Parnala Road, DharamVihar,

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana

….Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar Son of Sh. Satbir Singh R/o H.No.3, Dev Nagar,

Near, ITI, Bahadurgarh, District, Jhajjar, Haryana.

…. Respondent

Application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay of

397 days in filing the appeal.

Respectfully Showeth
1. That the applicants are filing the accompanying

appeal before this Hon’ble Court and are quite

hopeful of its success on the grounds mentioned

therein. The same may kindly be read as part

and parcel of the present application.

2. That on 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/complainant was noted down the

wrong date i.e. 19.03.2023 instead of

19.01.2023 and on 19.03.2023 the counsel for

the applicant/complainant appear before Ld.

JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI Act)

Bahadurgarh, then he came to know that

complaint has already dismissed on 19.01.2023

for want of prosecution appearance,

complainant also not appear on the date fixed,

because complainant already suffered with the

paralytics attack. So due to said reason

complainant could not appear on the date fixed.

The copy of Medical Prescription Card is already

annexed with the main appeal as Annexure A-

2
 3. That due to aforesaid reason, delay of 397 days

has been caused, which is neither deliberate nor

intentional. Neither of the applicants shall gain

anything out of the aforesaid delay. It will be in

the interest of justice of the delay is condoned

and the appeal is heard on merits.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

delay of 397 days in filing the present appeal may kindly be

condoned and the appeal be ordered to be heard on merits.

And/or

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be

granted in favour of the applicants.

Chandigarh (JEEVAN GAUTAM &)

Dated: .02.2024 P-1755/2015
Advocate
Counsel for the Appellants
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM__________OF 2024

IN

CRM-A__________MA-2024

Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer age about 46 Years R/o

130/19, Gali No. 1A, Parnala Road, DharamVihar,

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana

….Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar Son of Sh. Satbir Singh R/o H.No.3, Dev Nagar,

Near, ITI, Bahadurgarh, District, Jhajjar, Haryana.

…. Respondent

Affidavit of Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Sumer

age about 46 Years R/o 130/19, Gali No. 1A,

Parnala Road, DharamVihar, Bahadurgarh,

District Jhajjar, Haryana .Adhar No.

Mobile No.
 I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the applicants are filing the accompanying appeal

before this Hon’ble Court and are quite hopeful of its

success on the grounds mentioned therein. The same

may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present

application.

2. That on 19.01.2023 the counsel for the

applicant/complainant was noted down the wrong date i.e.

19.03.2023 instead of 19.01.2023 and on 19.03.2023 the

counsel for the applicant/complainant appear before Ld.

JMIC, (Exclusive Court under NI Act) Bahadurgarh, then

he came to know that complaint has already dismissed on

19.01.2023 for want of prosecution appearance,

complainant also not appear on the date fixed, because

complainant already suffered with the paralytics attack.

So due to said reason complainant could not appear on

the date fixed. The copy of Medical Prescription Card is

already annexed with the main appeal as Annexure A-2

 3. That due to aforesaid reason, delay of 397 days has been

caused, which is neither deliberate nor intentional.

Neither of the applicants shall gain anything out of the

aforesaid delay. It will be in the interest of justice of the

delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.

CHANDIGARH
DATED: .02.2024 DEPONENT
Verification:

Verified that the contents of Para No. 1 to 3 of the affidavit are

true to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has

been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH

DATED: .02.2024 DEPONENT