CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 141 CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.07.2026 Raj Kumar Bhatia ...Petitioner Versus Jagmeet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Petitioner in person. (Through VC) MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. CRM-30238-2026 Allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record. 2. CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2025, titled as Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Jagmeet Singh, whereby the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi dismissing the petitioner's application for discharge has been upheld. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the summoning order dated 12.09.2017, the order dated 30.08.2018 serving notice of accusation upon the petitioner and all consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint. 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.29 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) -2- petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent/complainant alleging therein that on 01.06.2016, the accused/petitioner represented that he would arrange a valid visa and facilitate the complainant's participation in the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Wrestling Competition in the United Kingdom. On the said representation, the complainant allegedly paid a sum of ₹5,00,000/- in cash to the petitioner in the presence of his father. It is further alleged that the petitioner failed to arrange the promised visa and permission letter. Thereafter, in discharge of his liability, the petitioner allegedly issued Cheque No.000015 dated 10.03.2017 for ₹4,00,000/-, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Zirakpur Branch, towards part payment of the amount, while assuring that the remaining ₹1,00,000/- would be paid separately in cash. The complainant presented the cheque through his banker, IDBI Bank, Dera Bassi, but the same was dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" on 14.03.2017. On the petitioner's assurance, the cheque was presented again, but it was once again dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant served a statutory legal notice dated 04.05.2017 calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed period. Despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to make payment, thereby compelling the respondent/complainant to file the aforementioned. 4. Upon presentation of the complaint and after recording the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and vide order dated 12.09.2017, summoned him to face trial MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.29 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) -3- under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Thereafter, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.08.2018. The petitioner, after putting in appearance before the trial Court, moved an application seeking his discharge from the complaint. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 07.12.2024. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2025, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali vide order dated 04.07.2025. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts concerned are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is argued that the petitioner never met the complainant, never received any amount from him and had no concern whatsoever with arranging a visa or facilitating participation in any wrestling event abroad. The entire story set up in the complaint is stated to be false and concocted. It is further contended that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant. Rather, the same had been handed over to one Rajwant Singh in connection with a property transaction and has been misused in connivance with the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued that the summoning order was passed mechanically without there being any prima facie material. No independent evidence regarding the alleged payment of ₹5,00,000/- in cash was produced and no documentary proof showing withdrawal of the said amount from the complainant's account was placed on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner's reply to the statutory legal notice, wherein he had specifically denied his liability and explained the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.29 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) -4- circumstances in which the cheque had been issued, was not duly considered by the Courts concerned. It is submitted that the petitioner's application for discharge was dismissed without proper appreciation of the material available on record and that the learned revisional Court also failed to consider the inconsistencies in the complainant's case while affirming the said order. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing trial in the aforementioned complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, which is a summons case. The procedure governing the trial of summons cases is contained in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once the learned trial Court had taken cognizance of the complaint and, after considering the preliminary evidence, issued process against the petitioner vide summoning order dated 12.09.2017, the proceedings were required to continue in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under the Code. Thereafter, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner on 30.08.2018, whereupon the trial had commenced. 8. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that the Courts concerned erred in declining his application for discharge. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted. The Code does not contemplate any provision enabling a Magistrate to discharge an accused in a summons trial instituted upon a complaint after issuance of process. Once cognizance has been taken MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.29 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) -5- and the accused has entered appearance, the Magistrate is required to proceed in terms of Section 254 Cr.P.C. by recording the evidence of the complainant and thereafter affording an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence. The learned trial Court, therefore, rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow an application seeking discharge in such proceedings. 9. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Court On Its Own Motion v. State Crl. Ref.4 of 2019 had observed that the trial Court cannot be conferred with the inherent powers, either to review or recall the order of issuance of process. The Court of a Magistrate does not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in Court in a summons trial case based upon a complaint in general, and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 10. Equally devoid of merit are the submissions regarding the correctness of the summoning order on the ground that there was no legally enforceable liability, that the cheque had been misused, that the petitioner never received any money from the complainant or that the complainant's version suffers from contradictions. All such pleas relate to the merits of the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner. Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, whether it had been misused, whether any consideration had actually passed between the parties and whether the complainant has been able to establish the ingredients of the offence are all MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.29 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39229-2025 (O&M) -6- disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the defence sought to be projected by the petitioner. 11. It is also pertinent to notice that the petitioner had already been served with notice of accusation on 30.08.2018. The application seeking discharge remained pending and ultimately came to be decided on 07.12.2024. Even otherwise, the petitioner sought discharge after the proceedings had substantially progressed. By that stage, the complainant had already led evidence before the trial Court. The filing of such an application at an advanced stage of the proceedings was clearly not envisaged under the statutory scheme governing summons trials and had the effect of delaying the conclusion of the proceedings. The learned trial Court, therefore, committed no error in dismissing the application for discharge and the learned revisional Court has rightly affirmed the said order. This Court does not find any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 28.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.29 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document