1 2026:CGHC:8046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 564 of 2021 Elevation Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Through Keshav Upadhyay, Aged 38 Years, R/o Address 20-21, MLB Colony, Padav, Main Road, Gwalior (M.P.) 474001. ... Petitioner versus Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Corporate Office - Building A, 2nd Floor, Lodha I - Think Techno Campus, Pokhran Road 2, Thane (West) Maharashtra Branch Office Maruti Heights, Amanaka, GE Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Person Mr. Braj Kishor Sharma., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Devendra Pratap, Advcoate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Devendra Pratap, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased by allowing this petition thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure-P/1 and criminal complaint bearing case no. 2180/2019 (Annexure-P/2) pending in the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma) Raipur, in PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.19 10:27:16 +0530 2 the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner is the Director of the firm, having its registered office at 20–21, Laxmi Bai Colony, MLB Road, Lashkar, Gwalior. The petitioner firm is engaged in the business of logistics and vehicles. It obtained a vehicle loan of Rs.26,00,000/- from the respondent, TMFL, Gwalior Branch, 45-A, Alaknanda Tower, Near HDFC Bank, City Centre, Gwalior, for purchase of a TATA LPK 2523 bearing registration No. UP 75 AT 0034. The loan was sanctioned vide Loan Contract No. 5001822268 dated 29.06.2015 by the respondent’s Gwalior office. At the time of sanction, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 000052 as a blank security cheque and retained a photocopy thereof. All loan documentation, including execution of agreements and submission of post-dated blank cheques as security, was completed at Gwalior. The vehicle was purchased from M/s S.G. Motors, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner regularly paid installments from its bank account at Gwalior, which were credited to the respondent’s bank account at Gwalior. Due to business losses, the petitioner defaulted in timely payment of certain installments. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the hypothecation agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator, who was ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An ex parte award dated 29.04.2017 was passed. 4. The petitioner challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of the 7th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, which is pending as MJC (AV) No. 11/2018. Subsequently, the respondent, through its Raipur branch despite no part of the transaction having occurred at Raipur presented the security cheque for encashment at Raipur. The cheque was dishonoured, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 3 1881 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, without jurisdiction. The learned Court, vide order dated 25.04.2018, took cognizance of the offence and issued a warrant against the petitioner without properly considering the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint is not maintainable for the following reasons: the cheque in question was issued as a blank security cheque at the time of loan sanction. As per settled law, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not attracted to security cheques issued at the inception of a loan transaction. No part of the cause of action arose at Raipur. The loan agreement, hypothecation agreement, execution of documents, payment of installments, and all related transactions occurred at Gwalior. Presentation of the cheque at Raipur was done solely to harass the petitioner and to create artificial jurisdiction. 5. The petitioner is a private limited company. Without impleading the Director or signatory of the cheque as an accused, and without compliance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint is not maintainable. The cheque was neither issued nor delivered at Raipur, therefore, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the JMFC, Raipur. Despite these legal defects, the learned Court, by order dated 25.04.2018, took cognizance without proper application of mind and issued a warrant against the petitioner. Since the complaint is neither tenable nor maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deserve to be invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 4 6. Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order taking cognizance and the filing of the criminal complaint against the petitioner are patently illegal and contrary to law. While passing the impugned order, the learned JMFC, Raipur failed to consider and appreciate the facts of the case and the mandatory provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hence, the order is illegal and unsustainable in law. The signatory of the cheque has not been impleaded as an accused, nor has the mandatory statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 been served upon him. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. The cheque in question, bearing No. 000052, was issued as a post-dated blank security cheque at the time of sanction of the loan. As per the settled position of law, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not attracted to security cheques issued at the inception of a loan transaction. Neither the vehicle loan agreement nor the hypothecation agreement was executed at Raipur, and neither party is situated at Raipur. No part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of JMFC, Raipur. Presentation of the cheque at Raipur was done solely to create artificial jurisdiction and to harass the Petitioner, rendering the complaint an abuse of the process of law. The cheque was neither issued nor delivered at Raipur, hence, no cause of action arose there. The complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur is therefore, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 7. Mr. Shrivastava, further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely contractual in nature. The respondent has already invoked arbitration proceedings, and related proceedings are pending before the competent Court at Gwalior (M.P.). Initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to misuse of the criminal process. None of the essential 5 ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the petitioner. The entire action of the respondent amounts to an abuse of the process of law. This is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. 8. Mr. Devendra Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2018 and Criminal Complaint Case No. 2180/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, is not maintainable. The petitioner has not entered appearance before the learned trial Court and, without submitting to its jurisdiction, has directly approached this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings. It is an admitted position that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.26,00,000/- and executed Loan Contract No. 5001822268 dated 29.06.2015. At the time of execution of the loan agreement, Cheque No. 000052 was issued to the respondent as security. The petitioner has also admitted default in repayment of the loan amount. Due to the petitioner’s default, the respondent presented the aforesaid cheque for collection through its bank account at Raipur (C.G.), in accordance with its internal arrangements. The cheque was returned unpaid on 08.02.2018 with the remark “No Debit Status.” Thereafter, the respondent issued a statutory notice dated 19.02.2018 by registered post demanding payment of the cheque amount. Despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to make payment within the prescribed period. 6 Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.), which has jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the Act. 9. Mr. Pratap, further submits that even if the Courts at Gwalior may also have jurisdiction on account of the loan transaction, the same does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court at Raipur (C.G.). Since the cheque was presented through the respondent’s bank at Raipur and was dishonoured there, the learned JMFC, Raipur has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Upon default by the petitioner, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the loan contract, and the learned Arbitrator passed an award dated 29.04.2017 against the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously on the same set of facts. The existence of an arbitral award or civil remedy is not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite having knowledge of the arbitral award and dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner has failed to repay the outstanding loan amount, which reflects its mala fide intention. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without first appearing before the learned trial Court. The grounds raised herein could have been urged before the trial Court. The present petition is therefore, not maintainable and amounts to abuse of the process of law, aimed solely at avoiding repayment of the loan. In light of the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of merit and the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Court be pleased to dismiss the 7 petition with costs. It is further submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, it is clear that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 26,00,000/- and issued the cheque in question in connection with the said transaction. The cheque was presented for encashment and was dishonoured. Statutory notice was issued and upon failure of payment, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioner. At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry into disputed questions of fact. Whether the cheque was issued as security or towards legally enforceable debt is a matter of evidence and can be adjudicated during trial. The plea that the cheque was a “security cheque” cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing at the threshold. 12. So far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented for collection through the account of the payee shall have jurisdiction. In the present case, the cheque was presented through the respondent’s bank account at Raipur and was dishonoured there. Therefore, prima-facie, the learned JMFC, Raipur has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The contention 8 regarding non-compliance of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and non-impleadment of the signatory are also matters which can be raised before the trial court. At this preliminary stage, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of the offence. The existence of arbitral proceedings and passing of an award dated 29.04.2017 does not bar criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is well settled that civil and criminal remedies may proceed simultaneously on the same set of facts. 13. Furthermore, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without first appearing before the learned trial Court and raised the available objections therein. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The present case does not fall within such exceptional category. The impugned order dated 25.04.2018 reflects that the learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint and documents, found prima-facie commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and registered the complaint. As such, no patent illegality or perversity is found in the said order warranting interference. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court, it is evident that the learned Magistrate has duly considered the material on record and applied his judicial mind before taking cognizance. 15. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 9 Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the order dated 25.04.2018 and Criminal Complaint No. 2180/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) is hereby dismissed. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti