CRM-M-51133-2021 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (163) CRM-M-51133-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.07.2026 VINOD KUMAR GARG @ MAMA … Petitioner Versus KARAMVEER AND OTHERS ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in Complaint Case No. NI Act 575/2018 dated 17.09.2018, titled 'Karamveer v. M/s SRS Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. and Others' (Annexure P-1). It is contended that the impugned summoning order is illegal, arbitrary, and suffers from manifest infirmity insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, and consequently, the complaint deserves to be quashed qua the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, respondent No.1-complainant instituted a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51133-2021 (O&M) -:2:- Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging dishonour of cheque bearing No. 419145 dated 27.07.2018 for an amount of 6,45,000/- ₹ , drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, NIT Branch, Faridabad. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents. However, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-complainant to contest the present petition. 4. At this stage, service upon respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is dispensed with, they being only proforma parties and not necessary for the adjudication of the present petition, at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the paper book. 6. A perusal of the complaint reveals that, in the cause title, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6, with his designation described as that of a Branch Manager. However, in paragraph 4 of the complaint, the petitioner has been described as a Director of the company and has been alleged, along with the other accused, to be jointly and severally responsible for the affairs of the company. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-3, namely the Master Data obtained from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which reflects that the petitioner is a Whole-Time Director of M/s Logical Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Logical Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., but does not indicate that he is or was a Director of M/s SRS Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., arrayed as accused No.1 in the complaint. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51133-2021 (O&M) -:3:- 6.1. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question does not bear the signature of the petitioner; rather, the same has admittedly been signed by respondent No.5-Devender Adhana. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court finds considerable substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was neither a Director of accused No.1- company nor a person in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of its business at the relevant time. Save and except the bald, omnibus and stereotyped averment contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint describing accused Nos. 2 to 6 as Directors responsible for the affairs of the company, there is neither any specific allegation nor any cogent material on record to prima facie establish the petitioner's association with M/s SRS Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. or to attribute any active role to him in the commission of the alleged offence. In the absence of the essential foundational pleadings necessary to attract vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner's prosecution cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6.2. Significantly, while passing the impugned summoning order dated 30.01.2019, the learned Magistrate has not recorded any satisfaction or assigned any reasons indicating how the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned order is conspicuously silent with regard to the specific role attributed to the petitioner or the material on the basis of which his summoning was considered justified. 6.3. In the absence of any prima facie material establishing the petitioner's involvement in the affairs of accused No.1-company or his GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51133-2021 (O&M) -:4:- liability under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of the Court and would result in unnecessary harassment besides causing avoidable wastage of judicial time. Consequently, the complaint dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure P-1), along with the impugned summoning order dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure P-2), is hereby quashed qua the present petitioner and instant petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or ancillary thereto, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in that regard. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document