CRM-M-36767 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 155 Chitra Mittal Jyoti CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 NACT No.3572 of 2025 titled ‘ 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885 Act’) and order dated 24.02.2026 of learned JMIC, Bathinda vide which petition of Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. under Section 138 of had been summoned to face trial v 24.02.2026. approached by the paid him Rs.12,60,500/ could not be processed and com compromise was reached and petitioner 36767-2026(O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Chitra Mittal V/S CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of complaint bearing NACT No.3572 of 2025 titled ‘Jyoti vs. Chitra Mittal 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI and order dated 24.02.2026 of learned JMIC, Bathinda vide which petitioner has been summoned to face the trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by respondent wherein petitioner had been summoned to face trial vide impugned order dated 24.02.2026. Petitioner, who was running an Immigration Firm was approached by the complainant for Visa for Finland and complainant paid him Rs.12,60,500/- for this purpose. could not be processed and complainant demanded her money back. compromise was reached and petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10,50,000/ 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36767-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , Advocate Prayer in the petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya is for quashing of complaint bearing Jyoti vs. Chitra Mittal, under Section (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI and order dated 24.02.2026 of learned JMIC, Bathinda vide er has been summoned to face the trial under Section 138 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was filed by respondent wherein petitioner ide impugned order dated , who was running an Immigration Firm was for Visa for Finland and complainant purpose. For some reason, the Visa plainant demanded her money back. A agreed to pay Rs.10,50,000/- to KAPIL 2026.07.10 20:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36767 the complainant. To secure the compromise Pursuant to the compromise, transferred in the 13.10.2025 to 30.10.2025 through online payment. was due an outstanding. The complainant misused the blank signed cheque, given at the time of compromise well as summoning Bathinda, thus, deserved to be quashed. 3. Securities Ltd. and Others (2000) 2 SCC 745 noticed the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of under:-: 36767-2026(O&M) the complainant. To secure the compromise Pursuant to the compromise, a total sum of Rs.8,35,000/ transferred in the account of the complainant 13.10.2025 to 30.10.2025 through online payment. was due an outstanding. The complainant misused the blank signed given at the time of compromise, as security. The complaint as well as summoning orders dated 24.02.2026 of learned JMIC, Bathinda, thus, deserved to be quashed. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Securities Ltd. and Others (2000) 2 SCC 745 iced the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of “(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the other liability; (ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (iii) that cheque is returned by the ban either because the amount of credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be 2 the complainant. To secure the compromise, a blank cheque was given. a total sum of Rs.8,35,000/- was account of the complainant on various dates w.e.f. 13.10.2025 to 30.10.2025 through online payment. Only Rs.2,15,000/- was due an outstanding. The complainant misused the blank signed as security. The complaint as 24.02.2026 of learned JMIC, Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. and Others (2000) 2 SCC 745, the Hon’ble Apex Court iced the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act as (i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from that account for the discharge of any debt or that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, (iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be KAPIL 2026.07.10 20:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36767 4. by respondent against the petitioner, the Court is facie case to summon the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act was clearly made out. Rs.10,50,000/ was presented to the Bank for discharge of cheque was presented to the Bank within six months and was returned unpaid, on account of 14.10.2025. After was issued, payment of cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Undeniabl within 15 days. cheque was 36767-2026(O&M) paid from that account by an the bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in cheque makes a demand for the amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.” Having gone through the complaint, Annexure P dent against the petitioner, the Court is case to summon the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act was clearly made out. Cheque No.000012 dated 08.10.2025 Rs.10,50,000/- issued in favour of the complainant by the petitioner, was presented to the Bank for discharge of cheque was presented to the Bank within six months and was returned on account of insufficient funds vide cheque return memo dated 14.10.2025. After receipt of the cheque, legal notice dated 12.11.2025 , intimating the petitioner and calling upon payment of cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Undeniably, payment of entire cheque amount was not made n 15 days. The disputed question of fact that was made over to the respondent, 3 paid from that account by an agreement made with the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.” Having gone through the complaint, Annexure P-4, filed dent against the petitioner, the Court is satisfied that prima case to summon the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act was 000012 dated 08.10.2025 for complainant by the petitioner, was presented to the Bank for discharge of her debt/liability. The cheque was presented to the Bank within six months and was returned insufficient funds vide cheque return memo dated receipt of the cheque, legal notice dated 12.11.2025 intimating the petitioner and calling upon him to make payment of cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the cheque amount was not made of fact that a blank signed as security cannot be gone KAPIL 2026.07.10 20:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36767 into in this petition and must be raised only during the course of trial. Even if, it is accepted that payment to respondent record, then also NI Act is made out account of the part payment. Statutory presumption attached to the issuance of cheque operates and the Court must exercise restraint and circumspection in quashing proceedings presumption 5. Developers And Promoters and another’ observed that even very wide, its conferment requires the High Court to be more c and diligent. While examining any complaint or FIR, the High Court exercising its genuineness of the whether there exists any sufficient accused or not. 6. 3 SCC 794 R. Banumathi: 36767-2026(O&M) into in this petition and must be raised only during the course of trial. it is accepted that payment of Rs.8,35,000 to respondent as reflected in the statements of account then also, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 138 of Act is made out. The complaint is not account of the part payment. Statutory presumption attached to the of cheque operates and the Court must exercise restraint and circumspection in quashing proceedings presumption that operates in favour of the complainan Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sumit Bansal vs. M/s MGI Developers And Promoters and another’ observed that even though powers under Section 482 of very wide, its conferment requires the High Court to be more c and diligent. While examining any complaint or FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations made. The Court must only consider whether there exists any sufficient material accused or not. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2020) where the following pertinent opinion was given by Justice R. Banumathi: “22. ……… When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint under section 138 of the NI Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court 4 into in this petition and must be raised only during the course of trial. of Rs.8,35,000/- was indeed made the statements of account placed on it cannot be said that no offence under Section 138 of not liable to be quashed, on account of the part payment. Statutory presumption attached to the of cheque operates and the Court must exercise restraint and circumspection in quashing proceedings, in the wake of legal that operates in favour of the complainant. ‘Sumit Bansal vs. M/s MGI 2026(2) SCC (Cri) 12, has under Section 482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Court to be more cautious and diligent. While examining any complaint or FIR, the High Court power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the allegations made. The Court must only consider material to proceed against the Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2020) where the following pertinent opinion was given by Justice When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint under section 138 of the NI Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court KAPIL 2026.07.10 20:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36767 7. petitioner herself terms of the compromise, the proceedings in the complaint Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be scuttled at this nascent stage. 8. 09.07.2026 Kapil 36767-2026(O&M) by taking recourse to section 482 CrPC, 1973. Thoug Court has the power to quash the criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the NI Act on the legal issues like limitation. etc. criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the NI Act against Yogeshbhai ought not to have been quashed merely on the ground that there are inter se disputes between Appellant 3 and Respondent 2. Without keeping in view the statutory presumption raised under section 139 of the NI Act, the High Court, in our view, committed a serious error in quashing the criminal complaint in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed under section 138 of the NI Act." Since disputed questions of fact are involved and the herself has admitted her liability to pay terms of the compromise, the proceedings in the complaint Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be scuttled at this nascent stage. Dismissed. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5 by taking recourse to section 482 CrPC, 1973. Though, the Court has the power to quash the criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the NI Act on the legal issues like limitation. etc. criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the NI Act against Yogeshbhai ought not to have been the ground that there are inter se disputes between Appellant 3 and Respondent 2. Without keeping in view the statutory presumption raised under section 139 of the NI Act, the High Court, in our view, committed a serious error in quashing the criminal laint in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed under section 138 Since disputed questions of fact are involved and the liability to pay Rs.10,50,000/- in terms of the compromise, the proceedings in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be scuttled at this SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No KAPIL 2026.07.10 20:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document