CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) Sarabjit Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Happy Chhabra ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 24.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Narula, Senior Advocate with Mr. G. S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate For the respondent. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Complaint No.280 dated 03.07.2014 (wrongly mentioned as Complaint No. 52/2014 in the petition) titled "Happy Chhabra versus Sarbjit Singh and others", pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat, instituted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -2- dated 23.01.2017, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in the aforementioned complaint. 2. Brief facts, as per the impugned complaint, are that respondent No. 1/complainant, Happy Chhabra, is the proprietor of M/s Indian Art Export, Panipat, and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting handloom products for about 15 years. It was alleged that accused No.1, Sarabjit Singh and accused No.2, Vineet Nanda (petitioners herein) represented themselves to be established businessmen residing abroad and expressed their desire to import handloom products from India for sale in the United States. According to the complainant, in order to win his confidence, accused Nos.3 and 4, namely Dr. D.P. Singh Arora and Dr. Kanwaljit Kaur, arranged a meeting at Mussoorie on 29.06.2008, where they introduced the complainant to the petitioners and represented that they would also invest an amount of Rs.1 crore in the proposed business venture, thereby assuring the complainant of the financial credibility and bona fides of the accused persons. The complaint further alleged that acting upon the aforesaid representations, the complainant visited the United States, where Sarabjit Singh and Vineet Nanda persuaded him to export goods to their company. Believing their assurances, the complainant exported three consignments of handloom products worth several lakhs of rupees. Although petitioner Sarabjit Singh initially executed a written agreement assuring payment for the goods within 60 days together with interest in case of delay and even transferred a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the account of the complainant's father to inspire confidence, he subsequently failed to honour his commitments. On PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -3- repeated demands, he sought extensions of time through e-mails, made only part payments and ultimately defaulted in making the balance payment. Owing to the apprehension of non-payment, the complainant was compelled to divert one of the consignments lying at the foreign port and sell it to another purchaser at a substantial loss. 3. It was further alleged in the complaint that the complainant informed the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGC) regarding the default in payment, whereupon notices were issued to petitioner Sarabjit Singh. In response, petitioner Sarabjit Singh allegedly fabricated a false story claiming that the complainant and his wife were partners in the foreign company. The complaint asserts that Sarabjit Singh and Vineet Nanda prepared forged partnership documents, falsely used the complainant's firm's logo and other business documents without his consent and subsequently used those forged documents as genuine in India. The complainant alleges that the accused thereby committed offences of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents. It is also alleged that when the complainant demanded his dues, he was threatened with dire consequences over telephone. According to the complaint, the accused persons, acting in furtherance of a pre-planned criminal conspiracy, dishonestly induced the complainant to export goods and thereafter cheated him of an amount of 120,420 US Dollars (approximately Rs.62 lakhs) besides causing further financial loss on account of interest and business losses. It is alleged that the present petitioners were active participants in the conspiracy by inducing the complainant to repose confidence in the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -4- proposed business venture through their representations and assurances regarding investment. On these allegations, the impugned complaint came to be instituted against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC and vide summoning order dated 23.01.2017, the petitioners along with above named co-accused were summoned to face trial. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent, who is closely related to petitioner No. 1, being grandson of his paternal aunt, had travelled to USA in August, 2008. He had stayed at the residence of the petitioners and had convinced them to become partners with him in a partnership firm to run business of export. He had brought samples of the material along with him by using the name and address of the petitioners and by showing himself as a resident in the house of the petitioners in USA, he had drawn up a partnership agreement on 07.10.2008. The respondent and his wife were made the partners to the extent of 50% each. However, the said agreement could not be signed by the wife of the respondent due to her not being in USA at that time but was signed by others. The respondent had even opened a business account in the name of the firm so constituted with Valley Business Bank in California, whereby the petitioners were made the signing authorities. He had also obtained sales license. The firm constituted between the petitioners and the respondent had taken a warehouse on lease. The security deposit was paid by the petitioners and the lease expenses were borne by them for one year. The business had PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -5- started but without having made any order or consignment or purchase order, the respondent had got ordered two shipments of the material and continued sending more material on his own, despite the fact that the response for sale of the said material was not good. The respondent kept on travelling to India and coming back to USA and sending the shipments without consent or knowledge of the petitioners. On account of unilateral act of the respondent, there was a fallout between the parties. Neither transaction was done by the respondent himself or one of his firms in India to the firms in USA of which also he was a partner. It was he, who had dispatched containers from India without intimation to the petitioners and without requisite documents. He has prepared forged and fabricated documents showing execution of an agreement between the petitioners and himself on 11.02.20009, though in fact apart from the partnership deed, no agreement was executed between the parties. The ingredients for commission of alleged offences are not made out at all against the petitioners. It is a case of malicious prosecution of the petitioners. The summoning order is also not sustainable as the same is totally non-speaking. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed, the summoning order along with all the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed the petition by arguing that the complaint clearly discloses the active role of the petitioners in commission of alleged offences. The truthfulness of the allegations can only be examined PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -6- during trial. Therefore, no ground for quashing the complaint or the summoning order is made out. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material available on record. At this stage, this Court is not expected to meticulously examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the complaint or to record any finding on the merits of the rival claims. The limited question which falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court, while issuing the summoning order dated 23.01.2017, had applied its judicial mind to the allegations, the preliminary evidence and the legal ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 7. It is well settled that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and cannot be treated as an empty formality. Before directing a person to face criminal prosecution, the Magistrate is required to examine the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the documents produced in support thereof, and thereafter record satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out for the offences alleged. The summoning order must, therefore, reflect application of judicial mind and should indicate, even briefly, the reasons which persuaded the Magistrate to proceed against the accused. A mechanical or cryptic order merely reproducing the conclusion without disclosing the process of reasoning cannot be sustained in law. The aforesaid principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -7- Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein it was held that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It was further observed that the Magistrate is not expected to act as a silent spectator while recording preliminary evidence, but is under a duty to carefully scrutinize the oral as well as documentary evidence, examine whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are disclosed, and only thereafter pass a reasoned order reflecting due application of mind. The Court also reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 8. A perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2017 reveals that the learned Magistrate has merely noticed the recording of preliminary evidence and, in a cursory manner, summoned all the accused for the offences alleged. The order neither discusses the allegations levelled against the present petitioners individually nor records satisfaction as to how the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC are prima facie made out against them. The order is completely silent as to the material which persuaded the learned Magistrate to summon the petitioners and, therefore, does not satisfy the settled requirement of a reasoned order reflecting judicial application of mind. This Court is, however, conscious that it would not be appropriate at this stage to record any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the rival contentions raised by the parties, lest the same prejudice either side before the trial Court. Whether the allegations in the complaint, the preliminary PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13654-2018 (O&M) -8- evidence and the documents placed on record disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners are matters which deserve to be independently examined by the learned Magistrate while considering the question of summoning. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of by setting aside the summoning order dated 23.01.2017. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court to consider the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the material placed on record afresh and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned order, in accordance with law, as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners for commission of the alleged offences. It is, however, clarified that the impugned complaint already stands quashed qua accused Davinder Pal Singh Arora, whereas the proceedings against his wife Kanwaljit Kaur have been abated on account of her demise. 10. Needless to observe that the learned Magistrate shall take an independent decision uninfluenced by any observations made herein, which have been recorded only for the purpose of deciding the present petition. 23.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document