IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1151 of 2024 Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Shri Ram Finance Limited … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to orders dated 20.03.2023 and 07.12.2023, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.97/3 of 2023, titled Shriram Finance versus Sanjeev Kumar, whereby the petitioner herein came to be summoned in proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner towards discharge of lawful liability 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was dishonoured on account of blocking of his account by the statutory authority, no complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned orders, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same. The cheque bearing No.125801, dated 12.12.2022, amounting to Rs. 85,005/-, issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of his lawful liability, was returned by the bank concerned with the remarks “Account Blocked”. Since despite service of demand notice, accused failed to pay the cheque amount within stipulated period, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. 4. Having taken note of aforesaid fact as well as preliminary evidence adduced on record, learned Court below rightly issued summoning orders against the accused. Factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signatures thereupon has not been disputed, rather attempt has been made to refute the claim of the complainant on the ground that cheque issued by the accused was not dishonoured on account of blocking of account, if any, by the accused, rather same was got blocked by the statutory authority. 5. Interestingly, though this Court is of the definite view that factum with regard to petitioner’s account, if any, got blocked by some 3 statutory authority, is required to be proved by the accused during trial, but even otherwise no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced on record in the instant proceedings to demonstrate that his account, for which he had issued cheque, which is subject matter of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, was blocked by statutory authority, after his having issued cheque in favour of the complainant. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld and present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, any observation/finding given in the instant petition is strictly for the purpose of dismissal of the present petition and same shall have no bearing on the main case, which shall be decided by the Court below on the basis of the evidence as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties. 7. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2026 (shankar)