CRM-M-72640- 127 IN T M/s Guru Ram Da Nanak Chand and CORAM : HON' Present: Mr. S MANDEEP PAN 1. The Nagarik Suraksha 13.08.2025 (Anne Fazilka, in Com proceedings arisin petitioners to face 2. Brief namely Nanak Ch of the Negotiable of cordial relatio time to time, wh discharge of the s dated 25.06.2025 presentation, the -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR -.- CRM Date am Dass Ji and Another VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEE Mr. S.S.Sahu, Advocate for the petitio -.- PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed u raksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quas (Annexure P-3) passed by the learne Complaint No. NACT-443-2025, s arising therefrom, whereby the learn to face trial under Section 138 of the N Briefly, the facts of the case are th nak Chand and his wife Renu Bala, fil otiable Instruments Act against the pe relations, they had advanced various e, which in total came to ₹14,10,0 f the said liability, the petitioners issu 6.2025 for a sum of ₹14,00,000/- dra n, the cheque was returned unpaid wit -1- UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CRM-M-72640-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondents NDEEP PANNU petitioners. filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiy r quashing of the impugned order date learned Judicial Magistrate First Clas 2025, along with all consequenti e learned trial Court has summoned th f the Negotiable Instruments Act. are that the respondents/complainant ala, filed a complaint under Section 13 the petitioners alleging that, on accou arious amounts to the petitioners fro 4,10,000/-. It is alleged that toward rs issued a cheque bearing No. 00101 drawn on ICICI Bank, Ratia. Upo aid with the remarks “Payment Stoppe haratiya er dated st Class, quential ned the lainants, tion 138 account rs from towards 001011 a. Upon Stopped TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.03 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72640- by Drawer” vide notice dated 17. received by them Consequently, th prescribed limita produced, the lear dated 13.08.2025 Negotiable Instru present petition. 3. The passed in a mech utter disregard of alleged cheque b does not bear th proprietor of pet According to the Deepak, son of S who forged and question. It is f relatives of the sa petitioners. There liable for the alle not issued in d petitioners. The p -2025 (O&M) ” vide return memo dated 07.07.20 d 17.07.2025 was issued to the p y them, however, no payment was m tly, the respondents/complainants f limitation. On the basis of prelim he learned Judicial Magistrate First Cl .2025, summoned the petitioners to fa Instruments Act, which order is the s ition. The petitioners contend that the imp mechanical manner, without proper a ard of the material placed on record. que bearing No. 001011 dated 25.06 ear the signature of petitioner No.2 of petitioner No.1 firm, M/s Guru R to the petitioners, the said cheque has n of Satnam Chand, who was a silent d and fabricated the signature of pe t is further contended that the resp the said Deepak and had financial de Therefore, neither petitioner No.1 firm he alleged amount, as the cheque in q in discharge of any legally enfor The petitioners submit that these vi -2- .07.2025. Thereafter, a statutory leg the petitioners, which was alleged was made within the stipulated perio ants filed the complaint within th preliminary evidence and documen irst Class, Fazilka, vide impugned ord rs to face trial under Section 138 of th s the subject matter of challenge in th e impugned summoning order has bee oper application of judicial mind and ecord. It is vehemently argued that th 25.06.2025 for a sum of ₹14,00,000 No.2 Hakiqat Singh, who is the so Guru Ram Dass Ji Trading Compan ue has been fraudulently issued by on silent partner in the petitioner-firm, an of petitioner No.2 on the cheque e respondents/complainants are clos cial dealings with him, and not with th o.1 firm nor petitioner No.2 can be he ue in question is forged, fabricated an enforceable debt or liability of th ese vital aspects go to the root of th ry legal llegedly period. hin the cuments ed order 8 of the e in the as been d and in that the 00,000/- the sole ompany. by one irm, and eque in close with the be held ted and of the t of the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.03 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72640- matter, yet the l summoning order 4. The controversy invol and documents a that issuance of n petition, therefore of the material respondents. 5. Havi the record, this C exercising the inh 6. The cheque in questio the same has bee such pleas square on the disputed c the consent or aut the offence alleg proceedings unde require appreciati falls within the ex 7. Muc the submission th examining a han -2025 (O&M) the learned Trial Court failed to c order, rendering the same illegal, arbi The matter being short and lying involved being capable of adjudicat ents already available on record, th ce of notice to the respondents is not r erefore, is taken up for final disposal a terial placed on record, without ca Having heard learned counsel for th this Court is of the considered opinio the inherent jurisdiction to quash the im The principal contention raised on b uestion does not bear the genuine sign as been forged and fabricated by a th squarely pertain to the defence of the uted cheque are genuine or forged, wh or authority of the petitioners, and wh alleged, are all questions of fact s under Section 528 of the BNSS at th reciation of evidence, including oral a exclusive domain of the trial court Much emphasis has been laid by lear sion that the petitioners would be able a handwriting or forensic expert. Th -3- d to consider them while issuing th al, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. lying in a narrow compass, and th udication on the basis of the pleading d, this Court is of the considered vie s not required at this stage. The prese posal at the threshold itself, on the bas out calling for a response from th for the petitioners and having peruse opinion that no ground is made out fo the impugned summoning order. d on behalf of the petitioners is that th ne signatures of petitioner No.2 and th y a third person. This Court finds th of the accused. Whether the signature ed, whether the cheque was issued wi nd whether the petitioners are liable fo fact which cannot be adjudicated S at this stage. These issues necessari oral and documentary evidence, whic l court. by learned counsel for the petitioners o e able to establish the alleged forgery b ert. There can be no quarrel with th ing the and the leadings ed view present he basis om the perused out for that the and that nds that gnatures ed with iable for cated in essarily , which oners on rgery by ith the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.03 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72640- proposition that t defence and to substantiate their the course of tria conduct a mini-tri when the same ar 8. At th see whether a pri complaint and th impugned order s the supporting do that the essentia summoned the perversity, or juris 9. It is exercised sparing do not disclose manifestly an abu the petitioners do raise a defence wh In view of the ab petitioners are pre appropriate stage. or the summoning -2025 (O&M) that the petitioners are at liberty to t nd to lead appropriate evidence, their stand. However, the stage for d of trial. The inherent jurisdiction of trial or to record findings on dispu me are yet to be tested by evidence. At the stage of summoning, the lear r a prima facie case is made out on and the preliminary evidence led by t order shows that the learned Magistra ing documents, and the preliminary e ssential ingredients of the offence the petitioners. This Court does or jurisdictional error in the said appro It is well settled that the power to qu paringly and with great caution, and o close the commission of any offenc an abuse of the process of law. In the ers do not demolish the complainant’ nce which requires adjudication after e the above discussion, this Court hold are premature and are matters to be c stage. At this juncture, no case is mad oning order. -4- ty to take all permissible pleas in the ence, including expert evidence, e for doing so would arise only duri on of this Court cannot be invoked n disputed questions of fact, particular earned trial court is only required ut on the basis of the averments in th d by the complainant. A perusal of th agistrate has considered the complain nary evidence and, upon being satisfie fence are prima facie disclosed, ha does not find any patent illegalit approach warranting interference. r to quash criminal proceedings is to b and only in cases where the allegation offence or where the proceedings a In the present case, the pleas raised b inant’s case at the threshold, but rath after evidence is led by both the partie rt holds that the grounds urged by th o be considered by the trial court at th is made out for quashing the complai in their nce, to during oked to ticularly uired to ts in the l of the mplaint, satisfied ed, has legality, is to be egations ings are aised by t rather parties by the rt at the mplaint TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.03 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72640- 10. Cons petitioners to rais to seek examinati court. 11. All p February 02, 202 tripti Whether s Whether r -2025 (O&M) Consequently, the present petition to raise all their pleas, including the p mination of an expert, in accordance All pending miscellaneous applicatio , 2026 ether speaking/non-speaking : Speakin ether reportable : Yes/No -5- tition is dismissed, with liberty to th the plea of forgery and fabrication an dance with law, before the learned tri lication(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE peaking es/No y to the tion and ned trial ed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.03 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document