IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 119 Amit Kumar State of Punjab and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Harpreet Singh Puri, Advocate, for the petitioners. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 respondents to investigate the representation dated 05.05.2025 filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing on be contends that the petitioner was Jewellery at Jallandhar under the name and style of Malhotra Brothers since 2000. He alongwith certain accused, namely Gagandeep Chopra, Suni @ Laddi, Jasmeet Singh @ Timmy, Brijesh Arora and Vicky etc. started running a committee business (Kitty) since 2014. However, some of the Kitty Party members did not deposit their dues as a result whereof, the petitioner suffered a huge loss to t the Kitty Party started was made by the petitioner to clear the dues by selling his properties between May to August, 2018. He contends that certai abducted the petitioner on 03.08.2018 and thereafter obtained cheques of various denomination towards the alleged IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61704 Date of decision: VERSUS and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Harpreet Singh Puri, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking directions to the respondents to investigate the representation dated 05.05.2025 filed by the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner was into doing the wholesale business of Artificial Jewellery at Jallandhar under the name and style of Malhotra Brothers since 2000. He alongwith certain accused, namely Gagandeep Chopra, Suni @ Laddi, Jasmeet Singh @ Timmy, Brijesh Arora and Vicky etc. started running a committee business (Kitty) since 2014. However, some of the Kitty Party members did not deposit their dues as a result whereof, the petitioner suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.1 crore and more the Kitty Party started pressing the petitioner to pay the amount. was made by the petitioner to clear the dues by selling his properties between May to August, 2018. He contends that certai abducted the petitioner on 03.08.2018 and thereafter obtained cheques of denomination towards the alleged outstanding amount. As a result of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 61704-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Harpreet Singh Puri, Advocate, The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the for seeking directions to the respondents to investigate the representation dated 05.05.2025 filed by the half of the petitioner vehemently doing the wholesale business of Artificial Jewellery at Jallandhar under the name and style of Malhotra Brothers since 2000. He alongwith certain accused, namely Gagandeep Chopra, Sunil Chopra @ Laddi, Jasmeet Singh @ Timmy, Brijesh Arora and Vicky etc. started running a committee business (Kitty) since 2014. However, some of the Kitty Party members did not deposit their dues as a result whereof, the petitioner and more. The other members of pressing the petitioner to pay the amount. An endeavour was made by the petitioner to clear the dues by selling his properties between May to August, 2018. He contends that certain Kitty members however abducted the petitioner on 03.08.2018 and thereafter obtained cheques of outstanding amount. As a result of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.27 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 119 CRM threats extended by the said accused persons, the petitioner went abroad. He has now submitted a representation to the respondents 05.05.2025 about the said incident and the threats extended by the said accused persons, however, no action has been taken. Consequently, the present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard through the documents appended along with the present petition. 4. It is undisputed from a perusal of the above that the incident in question, at best, relates to the the complaint is nearly 07 years. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner chose to remain quiet for that long a period. 5. Counsel Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on account of dishonor of the said cheques has been instituted by the said Gagandeep Chopra. He further contends that the said proceedings were dismissed in default, how of the same has been filed. 6. In the given representation before the police authorities at this belated stage may just be in the process of creating a defence in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that had been initiated by the holder cheque. The petitioner may, representation dated 05.05.2025 seeking action, action so that a ground of defence Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 CRM-M-61704-2025(O&M) threats extended by the said accused persons, the petitioner went abroad. He w submitted a representation to the respondents 05.05.2025 about the said incident and the threats extended by the said accused persons, however, no action has been taken. Consequently, the present petition I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. It is undisputed from a perusal of the above that the incident in question, at best, relates to the period from May to August the complaint is undisputedly filed now only in May, 2025 i.e. after a lapse of nearly 07 years. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner chose to remain quiet for that long a period. Counsel further informs that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on account of dishonor of the said cheques has been instituted by the said Gagandeep Chopra. He further contends that the said proceedings were dismissed in default, however, an application for revival of the same has been filed. In the given circumstances, it seems representation before the police authorities at this belated stage may just be in the process of creating a defence in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that had been initiated by the holder cheque. The petitioner may, under the garb of the present petition as well as the representation dated 05.05.2025 seeking action, probably w action so that a ground of defence may be initiated Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. There is no explanation for the inordinate 2 threats extended by the said accused persons, the petitioner went abroad. He w submitted a representation to the respondents-authorities on 05.05.2025 about the said incident and the threats extended by the said accused persons, however, no action has been taken. Consequently, the present petition learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. It is undisputed from a perusal of the above that the incident in period from May to August 2018 against which May, 2025 i.e. after a lapse of nearly 07 years. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner chose to further informs that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on account of dishonor of the said cheques has been instituted by the said Gagandeep Chopra. He further contends that the ever, an application for revival it seems possible that the filing of a representation before the police authorities at this belated stage may just be in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that had been initiated by the holders of the under the garb of the present petition as well as the probably want validation of his be initiated in the proceedings under the There is no explanation for the inordinate SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.27 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 119 CRM delay in coming to the Court, moreso when the petitioner was all the time aware of issuance of cheques and had him away to Dubai thereafter. It is also not disputed that he owed money to various persons and there is nothing to show about the accounts having been settled. Since the possibilities can be immense, it would not be appr stage as any such endeavour may prejudice the other party. 7. The present petition thus of defence strategy the representation to the authorities cannot 8. Moreover, once the petitioner himself has waited for more than 07 years, there is no reason as to why such direction ought to be issued urgency in such circumstances remedy to institute a complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate in reference to the grievance if any. 9. The present petition thus fails on all the said accounts. The same is accordingly dismissed recourse to alternative remedies as are available to him in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 19.11.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRM-M-61704-2025(O&M) delay in coming to the Court, moreso when the petitioner was all the time are of issuance of cheques and had him away to Dubai thereafter. It is also not disputed that he owed money to various persons and there is nothing to show about the accounts having been settled. Since the possibilities can be immense, it would not be appropriate for this Court to explore the same at this stage as any such endeavour may prejudice the other party. The present petition thus may be an afterthought. T defence strategy in institution of the present proceedings and submissi the representation to the authorities cannot entirely Moreover, once the petitioner himself has waited for more than 07 years, there is no reason as to why such direction ought to be issued such circumstances. Besides, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to institute a complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate in reference to the grievance if any. The present petition thus fails on all the said accounts. The same is dismissed at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative remedies as are available to him in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 3 delay in coming to the Court, moreso when the petitioner was all the time are of issuance of cheques and had him away to Dubai thereafter. It is also not disputed that he owed money to various persons and there is nothing to show about the accounts having been settled. Since the possibilities can be opriate for this Court to explore the same at this stage as any such endeavour may prejudice the other party. may be an afterthought. The possibility in institution of the present proceedings and submissions of entirely be ruled out. Moreover, once the petitioner himself has waited for more than 07 years, there is no reason as to why such direction ought to be issued under an esides, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to institute a complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate in reference to the The present petition thus fails on all the said accounts. The same is th liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative remedies as are available to him in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.27 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document