CRM-M-12158-2017 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (148) CRM-M-12158-2017 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Narmin Yadav @ Narmin Kaur Yadav ... Petitioner(s) V/s Rajeshwar Nand ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate and Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate, and Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the complaint bearing Registration No.248 of 2016 dated 22.09.2016 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure P-5), notice of accusation dated 16.02.2017 (Annexure P-6) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. In brief, the allegations levelled in the complaint are that in discharge of their legal liability accused-respondent No.2 in the complaint (Annexure P-1) i.e. Gaurav Yadav who happens to be the husband of the petitioner-Narmin Yadav issued three cheques i.e. cheque bearing Nos.514982, 514983 and 514984 dated 20.06.2016 respectively for a sum of Rs.2,47,000/- each drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Civil SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.23 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-12158-2017 (O & M) Lines, Bathinda, all of which came to be dishonoured, leading to the filing of the complaint (Annexure P-1), the consequential summoning order (Annexure P-5) and notice of accusation (Annexure P-6). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that she is the wife of Gaurav Yadav. In fact, she ceased to be a Director on 30.03.2011. The cheques in question were issued only on 20.06.2016. Therefore, the complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order (Annexure P-5), notice of accusation (Annexure P-6) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contends that the argument raised by the petitioner that the petitioner had ceased to be a Director on 30.03.2011 is incorrect. Surjit Singh, Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Civil Lines, Bathinda was examined as CW-1 and during the course of his examination and cross-examination, he brought on record the account opening Form showing that the petitioner was a Director even on 06.04.2011 i.e. after she allegedly ceased to be a Director on 30.03.2011. He contends that Form 32 showing resignation appears to have been fabricated with a view to avoid liability. In fact, the petitioner continued to masquerade as a Director and it is not certain if and when she has ever resigned as a Director. Even otherwise, it would a disputed question of fact that as to whether the petitioner resigned on 30.03.2011 or any other date given the account opening Form showing her to be a Director. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.23 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-12158-2017 (O & M) 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she had ceased to be a Director on 30.03.2011. The said contention is falsified by the deposition of CW-1 (Annexure R-1) and the account opening Form (Annexure R-2) showing that the petitioner continued to be a Managing Director even on 06.04.2011 on which date she was authorized by the Board vide a Resolution to open the bank account of the company alongwith her husband. 7. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, it would be a matter of Trial as to whether the petitioner was a Director or not on the date of issuance of the cheques in question on 20.06.2016. The said fact can only be adjudicated upon once evidence is led. 8. Further, both the accused (including the present petitioner) have been declared proclaimed persons and a consequential FIR has also been registered under Section 174-A IPC. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner and her husband does not entitle them to any relief. 9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 10. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 22, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.23 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh