CRM-M/40439/2026 of KARAN AHUJA Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 27 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, primarily seeking quashing of the order dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-

1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar in Complaint Case No. NACT-4858-2024 registered under Section 138 NI Act, titled as Raj Kumar Gupta Vs M/s Dayal Associate etc.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 has instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner and others, arising out of the alleged dishonour of cheque, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar. It is submitted that the petitioner never received the statutory legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from the complainant or his counsel, and therefore, the mandatory requirement of service of notice upon the drawer has not been complied with.

P a g e | 2

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was never served with any summons or notice issued by the learned Trial Court in the complaint case and was never afforded an opportunity to appear before the Court. It is further argued that if any acknowledgment or receipt pertaining to the alleged legal notice or Court process bears the purported signatures of the petitioner or any person known to him, the same are forged and fabricated documents allegedly procured by the complainant. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner, along with his family, was away on a family tour and had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the filing or pendency of the complaint.

It is only recently, upon being informed by his relatives/acquaintances that certain persons claiming to be police officials had visited his residence inquiring about the petitioner and his father, Jagdish Ahuja, and had disclosed that warrants had been issued against him by the Court at Hisar, that the petitioner came to know of the pendency of the present proceedings. Learned counsel has further argued that, on account of the petitioner's absence, the trial Court proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants for his arrest without affording him an adequate opportunity to explain the reasons for his non-appearance. Learned counsel has iterated that the non- appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court was not willful and unintentional. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear

P a g e | 3

before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State. He has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

4.1. Keeping in view of the nature of the present petition and the limited controversy involved therein, the personal presence of respondent No.2 is not necessary at this stage. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to dispose of the present petition without calling upon respondent No. 2 to appear or file any response.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially the factum of the petitioner-accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each and every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial & there being no tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner obstructing the trial; this Court is the considered opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed.

7. It is, thus, directed as follows:

(i) The impugned order dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar in Complaint Case No. NACT-4858-2024 registered under Section 138 NI Act, titled as Raj Kumar Gupta Vs M/s Dayal Associate etc. is set-aside subject to the petitioner

P a g e | 4

appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before 14.08.2026, furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial/concerned Court & shall also furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the trial/concerned Court on each and every date of hearing. It is clarified that the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty to impose such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of ₹10,000/- as costs with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, Bank details whereof reads thus:

Account No. 65004775776; IFSC Code: SBIN0050306; Branch Code: 50306; Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh

It is clarified that payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further reference to the Bench.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

July 27, 2026 Naveen

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No