IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 687 of 2023 Date of Decision:07.08.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parminder Jit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Roshna Devi …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of Complaint No. 893 of 2021, titled Roshna Devi versus Parminderjit Singh, filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “Act”), pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anni, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petitioner and further canvassed by Mr. Subhash Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that cheque, which is the subject matter of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, was never issued by the petitioner, which fact is evident from the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Certificate dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Bank of Baroda, Ferozpur Main Branch (available at page No.52 of the paper book). He states that since it stands duly established on record from the certificate issued by Bank of Baroda that the cheque in question was neither issued by the petitioner nor drawn on an account maintained by him, no case under Section 138 of the Act could have been initiated against him. While making this Court peruse provisions contained under Section 138 of the Act, Mr. Subhash Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that a person can be prosecuted under the aforesaid provision only when the dishonoured cheque has been drawn on an account maintained by such person and where the cheque is not drawn on an account maintained by the accused, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are not attracted. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that the petitioner had approached her to sell four bighas of land situated at Parwanoo, which proposal of the petitioner was accepted by the complainant. She alleged that she paid sum of Rs,7,00,000/- to the petitioner as advance payment, but petitioner failed to provide the property at Parwanoo. She alleged that though 3 subsequently, petitioner issued cheque bearing No.528742 dated 25.06.2021 for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of the complainant towards discharge of his lawful liability, however, aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Before afore complaint could be heard and decided by the Court below, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash the complaint on the grounds, as has been taken note hereinabove. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the cheque in question allegedly issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant towards discharge of his lawful liability never came to be dishonoured with the remarks “Signature Differs”, “Account Not Maintained”, or any other endorsement, rather same came to be dishonoured with remarks “insufficient funds”. It came to be submitted at the behest of the petitioner that cheque in question was never issued by him, rather same is a fabricated document. To substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon a certificate issued by Bank of Baroda, Ferozpur Main Branch, wherein it has been certified that Dena Bank merged with Bank of Baroda on 20.12.2020 and Dena Bank Account No. 132510033810 was 4 substituted by a new Account No. 10200100037286 in Bank of Baroda, which is stated to be owned and maintained by Sh. Deepak, S/o Sh. Prem Nath. 5. Having carefully perused the aforesaid document, correctness and genuineness whereof is yet to be established on record by the petitioner by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this Court finds that while it has been certified therein that Dena Bank has merged with Bank of Baroda, there is nothing on record to suggest that Dena Bank Account No. 132510033810, allegedly maintained earlier by the petitioner, had ceased to operate, rather the aforesaid document reveals that the said account was substituted by new Account No. 10200100037286 in Bank of Baroda, which is stated to be owned and maintained by Sh. Deepak. There is nothing in the aforesaid certificate suggestive of the fact that cheque, which is subject matter of the present case, was not issued by the petitioner of his Dena Bank account and after its merger with the Bank of Baroda, the latter had no liability, if any, to honour the same. Besides the above, the aforesaid certificate is wholly silent with regard to the author/executor of the cheque in question. 6. Leaving everything aside, once cheque in question has been returned with the remarks "insufficient funds", the plea 5 otherwise sought to be raised in the instant proceedings for quashing of complaint cannot be accepted. 7. “Whether the cheque in question, which ultimately came to be dishonoured, was issued by the accused in favour of complainant towards discharge of lawful liability or not?” is a question to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence led on record by the parties. 8. Similarly, another plea raised by petitioner that cheque in question was not signed by him, can only be decided by the court below in totality of evidence. Had bank, which issued the return memo, thereby informing that cheque had been dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, given a reason that cheque in question cannot be encashed on account of difference in signature, petitioner would have been right in contending that on account of report given by the drawer of the bank, complaint instituted against the petitioner by the respondent is not maintainable, however, for the reasons and discussion made hereinabove, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of complaint cannot be accepted. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before Court below on 27.08.2026, enabling it to proceed with the matter. 6 Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. Since complaint instituted at the behest of the respondent is pending consideration for the last five years, this Court hopes and trusts that all out efforts shall be made to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 07, 2026 (Sunil)