CRM-M-40189-2021(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 CRM-M-40189-2021(O&M) Decided on: 08.07.2026 Raman Jain …...Petitioners Versus Vivek Bansal …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the respondent **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) CRM-26850-2026 This application under Section 528 of BNSS is for placing on record the MCA Company Information Report dated 25.05.2026 and Directorship Certificate dated 25.05.2026 as Annexures P-10 and P-11 respectively. 2. Notice in the application. 3. Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate, accepts notice of the application on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has no objection if the documents are taken on record. 4. In view of the above, the application is allowed. MCA Company Information Report dated 25.05.2026 and Directorship Certificate dated 25.05.2026 are taken on record as Annexures P-10 and P-11, subject to all just exceptions. Registry to tag the same at an appropriate place. REENA 2026.07.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40189-2021(O&M) CRM-M-40189-2021 (O&M) 1. Petitioner-Raman Jain has filed instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of summoning order dated 21.01.2020, vide which learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani has summoned the petitioner alongwith other co-accused, for committing offence for facing proceedings in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'NI Act') in NACT/Complaint No. 196 of 2020, titled as Vivek Bansal vs. Vivanti Private Limited and others, dated 21.01.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner is neither the Director of Vivanti Private Limited Company nor is responsible for its day to day affairs. Even he is not the signatory to the cheque in question, though relationship of the petitioner with the others namely Rajeev Jain, who is one of the Directors is admitted. Contention of the petitioner is that in any manner, petitioner is not connected with Vivanti Private Limited Company nor is involved in day to day affairs of it. The factual position for leading to the filing of complaint is that one Cheque No. 358570, dated 03.12.2019, valuing Rs. 8,22,820/- was issued by accused No. 2 (Rajeev Jain, Director) in discharge of the legally enforcible liability upon Vivanti Private Limited in favour of complainant (respondent herein). Said cheque got bounced and thereupon statutory legal notice was issued, leading to the filing of complaint dated 21.01.2020 by respondent-complainant Vivek Bansal against three accused namely accused No. 1-Vivanti Pvt. Limited, through its Director (i) Rajeev Jain (ii) Sh. Ramnik @ Raman Jain; accused No. 2-Rajeev Jain, Director of Vivanti Private Ltd. and accused No. 3 Ramnik Jain @ Raman Jain, Director of Vivanti Private Limited. Counsel contends that after filing of the REENA 2026.07.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40189-2021(O&M) complaint, based upon the wrong facts and incomplete evidence, petitioner was summoned alongwith other two accused by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.01.2020. Prime argument of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was never appointed as Director of the Company, right from its inception, i.e. from the year 2009. In support of the submissions, counsel for the petitioner, argues that as per the company master data from the period 20.10.2009 to 31.03.2020, except of two Directors, namely, Rajeev Ramanlal Jain and Sonal Rajeev Jain, no one else is shown to be Director in the Company. Even as per Memorandum of Association of the Company, under the Company's Act, 1956, only two names were incorporated. i.e. accused No. 2 with 5000 equity shares and another Director namely, Sonal Rajeev Jain (not an accused in the case) having 5000 equity shares, total 10,000 equity shares. 3. On 25.05.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to collect data from the office of Registrar of Companies (ROC) and then to place on record. Said documents now placed on record i.e. dated 25.05.2026 having company information in the Office of Ministry of Corporate Affairs clearly indicates that there are only two Directors, namely Sonal Rajeev Jain, and Rajeev Ramanlal Jain, having date of appointment as 20.10.2009. Relevant details are mentioned in extracting form as under: Sr. No. DIN/PAN Name Designation Category Date of appointment Cessation Signatory 1 01900066 Sonal Rajeev Jain Director Promoter 20.10.2009 - Yes 2 00863322 Rajeev Ramanlal Jain Director Promoter 20.10.2009 - Yes 4. Plea of petitioner is further strengthened from the confirmation letter REENA 2026.07.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40189-2021(O&M) dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-11) now placed on record and having been issued by the office of K Bindu & Associates, Company Secretaries, addressed to the Board of Directors, Vivanti Private Ltd. (accused No. 1 in the complaint). As per said information, confirmation letter, incorporated Directorship of the Company is mentioned as under: Din No. Name of the Director Designation Date of Appointment 00863322 Rajeev Jain Director 20.10.2009 01900066 Sonal Jain Director 20.10.2009 5. Reference of the documents in regard to the actual Directors in the Company, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant is unable to counter any of the factual position, which is reflecting from the documents. In the legal notice, issued under Section 138 of NI Act as well as the complaint filed by respondent, though it has been mentioned that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,22,820/- from the complainant in November 2019, therefore, accused No. 2 and 3, who are Directors of accused No. 1 are incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business, while examining the documents placed before this Court, said contention is found to be partly wrong viz. a viz. the petitioner herein. Of course, accused No. 2 is Director in the Company alongwith his wife i.e. mother of the petitioner, having equity shares to discharge the liability of the Company. Since the documentary evidence is unimpeachable before us and counsel for the respondent-complaint also expressed his helplessness to rebut the same, this Court finds that the complaint qua the petitioner (accused No. 3) is not maintainable, therefore, impugned summoning order viz. a viz. the petitioner is unsustainable, qua the allegations against the petitioner (accused No. 3), even no supporting material/evidence is placed before this Court by the respondent- REENA 2026.07.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40189-2021(O&M) complainant. 6. The petition, thus, is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 21.01.2020, to the extent of summoning the petitioner, is hereby, quashed. Needless to say, that complaint qua the petitioner is not even maintainable (SANJAY VASHISTH) 08.07.2026 JUDGE reena Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO REENA 2026.07.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh