CRM-M-40422-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40422-2023 Date of decision : 06.07.2026 Uploaded on :07.07.2026 SURENDER CHAHAL & ANOTHER ... Petitioners Versus AMAN ROHILLA & ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the impugned complaint No.452 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P-2) titled as Aman Rohilla Vs. Sunita Chahal & others filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, summoning order dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The brief allegations in the complaint are that in order to discharge their legally enforceable debt the petitioners along with their co-accused Sunita Chahal, in connivance with each other issued a cheque bearing Cheque No.133366 dated 11.06.2021 amounting to Rs.4 lakhs signed by Sunita Chahal to the complainant which on presentation came to be dishonoured leading to the filing of the impugned complaint JITESH LAL 2026.07.07 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40422-2023 -2- dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P-2) and the summoning order dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure P-3). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the cheque in question has been signed by Sunita Chahal the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2. The liability, if any is of Sunita Chahal alone as the petitioners are not signatories to the cheque in question. Merely by stating in the complaint that the cheque has been issued in connivance and conspiracy with each other would not entail the prosecution of the petitioners particularly when the summoning order is only under Section 138 of the NI Act and not under Section 420 IPC. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Alka Khandu Avhad VS. Amar Syamprasad Mishra & another, 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 286, Mrs. Aparna A. Shah Vs. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & another, 2013(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 686 and Prabha Goyal Vs. Arun Kumar, 2016(2) Law Herald 1528. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, on the other hand, contends that though the cheque was signed by Sunita Chahal, it was issued in connivance with the petitioners who happened to be the husband and son respectively of Sunita Chahal. It is a case wherein not only is an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act made out but Section 420 IPC is made out as well. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. JITESH LAL 2026.07.07 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40422-2023 -3- 6. Admittedly, the cheque in question has been signed by Sunita Chahal and not by the petitioners. Merely because Sunita Chahal is the wife of the petitioner No.1 would not inculpate either petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2. Further, the summoning order has been passed only under Section 138 of the NI Act and not under Section 420 IPC. In Alka Khandu Avhad (supra), Mrs. Aparna A. Shah (supra) and Prabha Goyal (supra) it has been categorically held that even in the case of husband and wife, the liability, if any, would be of the signatory/drawer of the cheque alone. 7. In view of the above, I find merit in the present petition. Therefore, the complaint No.452 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P-2), summoning order dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 06.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.07 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document