CRM-M-56992-2022 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (140-a) CRM-M-56992-2022 (O & M) Reserved on: 13.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 16.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 16.07.2026 Rohtash . …... Petitioner(s) V/s Satbir Singh and anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Bhavdeep Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the criminal complaint No.NI-1330/2018 dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the respondent No.1-complainant/Satbir Singh (hereinafter to be known as ‘the respondent No.1’) paid a sum of Rs.25 lacs to the accused for purchase of land vide agreement to sell dated 13.05.2016. The sale deed was to be executed by 15.12.2016. However, the accused persons cancelled the deal and while doing so, returned an amount of Rs.14,10,000/-in cash. For the remaining amount, Cheque No.000003 dated 05.05.2018 for a sum of SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-56992-2022 ::2:: Rs.5 lacs was issued by Ramesh and cheque bearing No.600358 dated 01.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- was issued by Rohtash (petitioner). 3. The aforementioned Cheque No.600358 dated 01.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,90,000 came to be dishonoured. When on sending the legal notice, no payment was made, the impugned complaint came to be filed. A copy of the complaint is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition. 4. Based on the said complaint and preliminary evidence, the petitioner came to be summoned to face Trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 23.08.2021. A copy of the summoning order is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition. 5. The aforementioned complaint (Annexure P-1) and summoning order (Annexure P-4) are under challenge in the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice has been issued after a considerable delay and therefore, is barred by limitation. Further, the dispute is of a civil nature. Therefore, the complaint (Annexure P-1), the summoning order (Annexure P-4) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the counsel for the State, on the other hand, contend that the petitioner is unable to explain as to how the notice issued is time barred. It is a case where the cheque has been issued in discharge of a legal liability of the petitioner inasmuch as against an amount of Rs.25 lacs, Rs.14,10,000/- was repaid to the respondent No.1 in cash whereas two cheques for an amount of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.5,90,000/- respectively were issued thereby making a total amount of SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-56992-2022 ::3:: Rs.25 lacs. Once, it is prima facie established that the cheque in question has been issued for the discharge of a legal liability, then, the question of quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order (Annexure P-2) does not arise. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. A perusal of the file would reveal that the petitioner and his co- accused agreed to sell their land to the complainant for an amount of Rs.25 lacs which was paid to them. However, they subsequently, refused to execute the sale deed and agreed to refund the amount received by them. A sum of Rs.14,10,000/- in cash was repaid to the complainant. For the remaining amount, two cheques were issued for an amount of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.5,90,000/- respectively by one Ramesh and Rohtash (petitioner). The said cheques were dishonoured leading to the filing of two separate complaints and two separate consequential summoning orders. Prima facie the cheques have been issued for the discharge of a legal liability and therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out. 10. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-56992-2022 ::4:: 12. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 16, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh