CRL.M.C./6834/2026 of ASHOK KUMAR Vs PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED on 15 September 2026

O R D E R

% 15.09.2026

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’] seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. CC/24064/2026, titled Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. M/s R.M. Liquors & Ors., instituted by the respondent under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’] and the summoning order dated 06.07.2026 passed therein, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No. 5 in the aforesaid complaint. Vide order dated 06.07.2026, the learned Trial Court took cognizance and directed issuance of summons against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint contains no specific averment that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused firm, as required under Section 141 of the NI Act. That the petitioner is neither a signatory to the cheque nor has any particular role in its issuance or dishonour been attributed to him and therefore, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon him merely because he was a partner of the firm.

4. Learned counsel further submits that cognizance was taken without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expressly mandated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. That the cognizance and the consequential issuance of summons, being in breach of the prescribed procedure, cannot be sustained.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. It is contended that no inquiry, as mandated under Section 225 of BNSS was conducted before issuance of process against him.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name does not find mention in the summoning order dated 06.07.2026, which directs issuance of process only against accused Nos. 1 to 4. The summons issued to the petitioner is, therefore, stated to be unsupported by any corresponding judicial direction.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

8. A perusal of the summoning order dated 06.07.2026 sought to be quashed shows that, although the petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 5, the learned Trial Court directed issuance of summons only against accused Nos. 1 to 4. The aforesaid summoning order thus contains no direction summoning the petitioner.

9. The summons issued to him, not being founded on a judicial order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside, qua the petitioner.

10. The matter is thereby, remanded to the learned Trial Court to fresh consideration, qua the petitioner as to whether or not an order summoning him is warranted. While doing so, the learned Trial Court shall also consider the pleas raised by the petitioner before this Court and pass an order in accordance with law. All contentions are left open.

11. The present petition is therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

12. The pending application also stands disposed of.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/PG