CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Satpal Garg ...Petitioner Versus Mehar Deen ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of Complaint bearing No. 867 of 2015, titled as Mehar Deen v. M/s Shadi Ram, filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’) as well as the summoning order dated 30.01.2016 along with all the proceedings having emanated therefrom. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent/complainant alleging therein that the petitioner was on friendly terms with him and on 20.07.2015, he borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant for business purposes. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued cheque No. 276772 dated 14.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Malour Branch, Punjab, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque for MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) -2- encashment through Punjab National Bank, Thanesar Branch. However, the cheque was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 22.08.2015 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient." Upon receiving intimation regarding the dishonour, the complainant contacted the petitioner and requested him to make payment of the cheque amount but he refused to do so. A legal notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2015 but to no avail, thereby compelling the respondent to file the aforementioned complaint. 3. On the basis of the preliminary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court observed that a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act had been made out against the petitioner for summoning him as an accused and issued process. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned complaint and the summoning order are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the continuation of the complaint would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. It was argued that the petitioner had retired from the partnership firm, M/s Shadi Ram Ram Sarup, with effect from 31.03.2014 under a duly executed dissolution deed and, thereafter, had no concern whatsoever with the affairs of the said firm. A new partnership came into existence from 01.04.2014 with different partners and at a different business address. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.07.2015 on behalf of the said firm is wholly false and contrary to the documentary record. Learned counsel further argued that after the dissolution of the firm, some signed blank cheques of the petitioner remained in the possession of the new partners and the same have been misused. It is further argued that the present complaint is a counterblast to the cheque dishonour complaints instituted by the petitioner's MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) -3- firm against one of the new partners, which ultimately culminated in their conviction and in furtherance of the said mala fide, three separate complaints under Section 138 of the N. I. Act were instituted against the petitioner at different places by persons closely connected with the new partners of the reconstituted firm 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has failed to establish the existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability. No material has been produced to show the complainant's financial capacity to advance Rs.10,00,000/-, the source of the alleged funds, or the circumstances under which such a substantial amount was allegedly advanced to the petitioner. Neither the terms and conditions of the alleged loan nor any contemporaneous document evidencing the transaction has been placed on record. It was, thus, argued that the complaint is based on vague and bald assertions and does not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to sustain the prosecution. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order is liable to be set aside. 6. There has been no representation on behalf of the respondent/complainant. 7. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in those cases where the complaint, on the face of it, fails to disclose the commission of any offence or MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) -4- where the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. At the stage of summoning or while considering a petition for quashing, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, which are essentially matters to be decided during trial. 9. In the present case, the complaint specifically alleges that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant and, towards discharge of the said liability, issued the cheque in question. It is further alleged that upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds, whereafter the statutory demand notice was duly served and despite receipt thereof, the petitioner failed to discharge the liability within the stipulated period. The learned trial Court, after considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and issued the impugned summoning order. Prima facie, therefore, the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act stand pleaded in the complaint. 10. The principal defence sought to be projected by the petitioner is that he had retired from the partnership firm with effect from 31.03.2014 and that the cheque in question was one of the signed blank cheques allegedly left with the new partners after dissolution of the firm, which has subsequently been misused. The petitioner has further alleged that the present complaint is a counterblast to certain proceedings initiated by his firm against one of the new partners. In the considered opinion of this Court, all these pleas involve seriously disputed questions of fact. Whether the petitioner had completely severed his connection with the firm, whether the cheque was voluntarily MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) -5- issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability or was misused after being retained by the new partners and whether the complaint has been instituted with an oblique motive, are all matters requiring evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS). The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for conducting a mini trial or for testing the veracity of rival factual assertions. 11. Further, so far as the contention that the complainant has failed to establish his financial capacity to advance the alleged loan amount or that no documentary evidence of the transaction has been produced is concerned, such submissions pertain to the merits of the prosecution case and constitute matters of defence. Whether the complainant possessed the financial means to advance the amount in question, whether the transaction actually took place and whether the statutory presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the N. I. Act stand rebutted are issues which fall squarely within the domain of the trial Court after the parties are afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. At this preliminary stage, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence likely to be adduced during trial. 12. The allegations of mala fides or that the complaint is a counterblast to earlier litigation also do not persuade this Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. It is well settled that even if animosity exists between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the impugned summoning order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35042-2017 (O&M) -6- inherent powers of this Court. The pleas raised by the petitioner are in the nature of defences which can appropriately be urged before the learned trial Court during the course of trial. No exceptional circumstance has been shown to establish that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or that interference by this Court is warranted at this stage. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Needless to observe that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case pending before the learned trial Court, which shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and in accordance with law. 22.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document