CRM-M/30351/2025 of BALWINDER SINGH Vs M/S SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED on 15 July 2026

1. Nagarik Su dated 22.04 ‘Shriram F Negotiable and all incid

2. was summo on complai without app The compla based on a was not pla Contents o 0351-2025(O&M) HE PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

CRM

Rese

Pron

Uplo Singh

V/S am Finance Limited

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHA Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advoc for the petitioner.

**** SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under uraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for qua 4.2025 of learned JMIC, Amrits Finance vs. Balwinder Singh Instruments Act, 1885 (hereina dental proceeding arising therefr Learned counsel for the petiti oned as an accused, to face trial u int filed by respondent. The sum plication of judicial mind, with aint would reveal that entire c loan agreement between the par aced on record nor was relied up of the loan agreement were a

A HIGH COURT AT H M-M-30351-2025(O&M) rved on: 08.07.2026 nounced on: 15.07.2026 oaded on : 15.07.2026

…Petitioner

…Respondent ALINI SINGH NAGPAL cate r Section 528 of Bhartiya ashing of summoning order sar in NACT-35-2025 titled h’ under Section 138 of after referred to as ‘NI Act’) rom. ioner submits that petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act mmoning order was passed hout recording any reasons. case of the respondent was rties, but the loan agreement pon in the list of documents. also not reproduced in the KAPIL

complaint n by the com The compla cheque was alleged che agreement o disclose any Section 138 the transact vide impug deserved to

3. attached to the Negotia

presu (a (b 0351-2025(O&M) nor it was averred in what capac mplainant or if it was against an aint did not disclose when the lo s given to the respondent by the eque was in discharge of co or was merely part payment. Pr y cause of action to summon the 8 of NI Act. There was nothing tion of the cheque, therefore, su gned order dated 22.04.2025 wa be quashed. Relevant for decision of the m a Negotiable instrument, as pro able Instruments Act, which read S.118 Presumptions as to neg

Until the contrary i umptions shall be made:

a) of consideration; that every made or drawn for considera instrument, when it has negotiated or transferred, negotiated or transferred for co

b) as to date; that every negotiab was made or drawn on such da city the cheque was received ny legally enforceable debt. oan was advanced, when the e petitioner and whether the omplete liability under the rima facie, complaint did not petitioner to face trial under g in the complaint regarding ummoning of the petitioner as bad in law and the order matter are the presumptions ovided under Section 118 of ds as under:- gotiable instruments: s proved, the following negotiable instrument was ation, and that every such been accepted, indorsed, was accepted, indorsed, onsideration; le instrument bearing a date ate; KAPIL

(c (d (e

(f) (g

4. Furth

0351-2025(O&M)

c) as to time of acceptance; th exchange was accepted within date and before its maturity;

d) as to time of transfer; that ev instrument was made before its

e) as to order of indorsemen appearing upon a negotiable in order in which they appear ther

f) as to stamp; that a lost promis or cheque was duly stamped;

g) that holder is a holder in due negotiable instrument is a hold that, where the instrument h lawful owner, or from any thereof, by means of an SP of obtained from the maker or ac an offence or fraud, or for u burthen of proving that the hol lies upon him. her, Section 139 of the Act reads

139. Presumption in favour o It shall be presumed, un that the holder of a cheque r nature referred to in section whole or in part, of any debt or hat every accepted bill of n a reasonable time after its very transfer of a negotiable s maturity; nts; that the indorsements nstrument were made in the reon; ssory note, bill of exchange course; that the holder of a der in due course: Provided has been obtained from its person in lawful custody ffence or fraud, or has been cceptor thereof by means of unlawful consideration, the lder is a holder in due course as under:- of holder.— nless the contrary is proved, received the cheque of the 138 for the discharge, in r other liability. KAPIL

5. Securities L noticed the under:-: 0351-2025(O&M) In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. and Others (2000) 2 SCC ingredients of the offence unde “(i) a person must hav account maintained by h a certain amount of mo out of that account for t other liability;

(ii) that cheque has b within a period of six which it is drawn or with whichever is earlier;

(iii) that cheque is retu either because the amou credit of the account is cheque or that it exceed paid from that account b the bank;

(iv) the payee or the cheque makes a demand amount of money by gi the drawer of the cheq receipt of information regarding the return of th s Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson C 745, Hon’ble Apex Court er Section 138 of NI Act as ave drawn a cheque on an him in a bank for payment of oney to another person from the discharge of any debt or been presented to the bank x months from the date on thin the period of its validity, turned by the bank unpaid, unt of money standing to the is insufficient to honour the ds the amount arranged to be by an agreement made with holder in due course of the d for the payment of the said iving a notice in writing, to que, within 15 days of the n by him from the bank the cheque as unpaid; KAPIL

6. under Secti CW-1/A fil affidavit, it liability, ow (respondent AMTSRTW dated 12.11 Bank Ltd. a was presen “refers to dr to complai (respondent complainan 26.11.2024, receipt. T payment wh

7. learned trial proceed aga 0351-2025(O&M)

(v) the drawer of such ch of the said amount of holder in due course of t the receipt of the said no On record is the complaint ion 138 of NI Act as also the a led by Sh. Sorav Yadav, Execut t prima facie transpires that i wed by the accused (petitioner

t) in respect of loan taken W200131002, accused(petitioner 1.2024 for Rs.94,000/- drawn assuring that the cheque would nted for clearance and was dis rawer”. The Banker returned the inant’s Banker, who in turn,

t) vide cheque return memo da nt (respondent) sent legal notice , which was duly received by The accused (petitioner) was g hich he failed to pay up. On the basis of this evidenc l court was of the view that ther ainst the accused (petitioner) un heque fails to make payment money to the payee or the the cheque within 15 days of otice.” filed against the petitioner affidavit tendered Annexure tive Legal Senior. From the in discharge of his lawful

r) towards the complainant vide agreement number

r) issued cheque No.035372 upon his Banker IndusInd be dishonored. The cheque shonored with the remarks e original dishonored cheque informed the complainant ated 15.11.2024. Thereafter, dated 25.11.2024 posted on the accused as per postal given 15 days to make the ce led at preliminary stage, re were sufficient grounds to nder Section 138 of NI Act KAPIL

and this Co that the loan of the comp 139 of Neg be a presum cheque was claims there during trial,

8. Court in Pharma (P) this context comp was a no ex have averm have

9. the course o The summo complaint i 0351-2025(O&M) ourt has no reason to hold otherw n agreement referred to in the co plainants representative was no gotiable Instruments Act would b mption in favour of the compla s issued in discharge of liabilit e was no liability, onus would b , at the appropriate stage.

Following observations M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another ) Ltd. and Another (2002) 1 SC t: “17. There is therefore n plainant must specifically allege a subsisting liability. The burde xisting debt or liability was on to discharge in the trial. At this ments in the petitions filed by the concluded that there was no exis In any case, the loan agreemen of evidence by making a prayer oning order is not liable to be qu is not accompanied by the lo wise. Even if, it is accepted omplaint and in the affidavit ot placed on record, Section be attracted and there would ainant (respondent) that the ty of debt. If the petitioner be on him to prove the plea, made by Hon’ble Supreme v. Medchl Chemicals and CC 234, would be relevant in no requirement that the e in the complaint that there en of proving that there was n the respondents. This they stage, merely on the basis of hem the High Court could not isting debt or liability.” (emphasis supplied) nt may even be produced in r under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ashed on the ground that the an agreement and that the KAPIL

cheque was accused mo before trial prematurely accruing in disputed qu court to det of the Hon’ Gujarat (20

0351-2025(O&M) s not issued against any legally oves to a Court for quashing of has commenced, endeavour of y stifle the prosecution by igno n favour of the complainant uestions of facts are involved, th termine on the basis of evidence ’ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai

020) 3 SCC 794 would be releva “22. ……… When dispute involved which need to be a adduce evidence, the complain NI Act ought not to have been by taking recourse to section 4 Court has the power to quash under section 138 of the NI A limitation. etc. criminal compl of the NI Act against Yogeshb quashed merely on the grou disputes between Appellant 3 keeping in view the statutory section 139 of the NI Act, th committed a serious error enforceable debt. When the f the summoning order even f the Court should not be to oring the legal presumption (respondent). Whenever hey are best left to the trial led. Following observations Muljibhai Patel v. State of nt in this context : ed questions of facts are adjudicated after the parties int under section 138 of the n quashed by the High Court 482 CrPC, 1973. Though, the the criminal complaint filed Act on the legal issues like laint filed under section 138 hbhai ought not to have been und that there are inter se 3 and Respondent 2. Without y presumption raised under he High Court, in our view, in quashing the criminal KAPIL

10. and Section quashed for that there i was receive any legally did not refle

11.

12. of. 15.07.2026 Kapil

0351-2025(O&M) complaint in CC No. 367 of 2 of the NI Act." Considering the statutory pres n 139 of NI Act, the summonin r the reason that the agreement is no averment in the complaint ed by the complainant (respond enforceable debt. The argumen ect due application of mind is ag There is no merit in the petition Pending miscellaneous applica (SH

Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable

2016 filed under section 138 sumptions under Section 118 ng order is not liable to be t has not been appended or in what capacity the cheque dent) and that it was against nt that the summoning order gainst record. n which stands dismissed. ation, if any, stands disposed HALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE ed : Yes/No : Yes/No

KAPIL