CRM-M/36767/2026 of CHITRA MITTAL Vs JYOTI on 9 July 2026

1. Nagarik Su NACT No.3 138 of Nego Act’) and which petiti of Negotiab

2. under Sectio had been 24.02.2026. approached paid him R could not be compromise 6767-2026(O&M) HE PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

CRM Date ttal

V/S

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHA Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advoca for the petitioner.

**** SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under uraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for qua 3572 of 2025 titled ‘Jyoti vs. C otiable Instruments Act, 1885 (h order dated 24.02.2026 of lea ioner has been summoned to fac ble Instrument Act. Learned counsel for the petitio on 138 of NI Act was filed by re summoned to face trial vid . Petitioner, who was running d by the complainant for Visa fo Rs.12,60,500/- for this purpose. e processed and complainant dem e was reached and petitioner agr

A HIGH COURT AT H M-M-36767-2026(O&M) of decision: 09.07.2026

…Petitioner

…Respondent ALINI SINGH NAGPAL ate r Section 528 of Bhartiya ashing of complaint bearing Chitra Mittal, under Section hereinafter referred to as ‘NI arned JMIC, Bathinda vide ce the trial under Section 138 ner submits that a complaint espondent wherein petitioner de impugned order dated g an Immigration Firm was for Finland and complainant For some reason, the Visa manded her money back. A reed to pay Rs.10,50,000/- to KAPIL

the complai Pursuant to transferred 13.10.2025 was due an cheque, giv well as su Bathinda, th

3. Securities L noticed the under:-: 6767-2026(O&M) inant. To secure the compromise o the compromise, a total s in the account of the complain to 30.10.2025 through online pa n outstanding. The complainant ven at the time of compromise, a ummoning orders dated 24.0 hus, deserved to be quashed. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. and Others (2000) 2 SCC 7 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 e, a blank cheque was given. sum of Rs.8,35,000/- was nant on various dates w.e.f. ayment. Only Rs.2,15,000/- t misused the blank signed as security. The complaint as 02.2026 of learned JMIC, Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson 745, the 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 KAPIL

4. by respond facie case t clearly ma Rs.10,50,00 was presen cheque was unpaid, on a 14.10.2025. was issued, payment of notice. Un within 15 d cheque was 6767-2026(O&M) 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

(v) the drawer of such ch of the said amount of holder in due course of t the receipt of the said no Having gone through the com ent against the petitioner, the C to summon the petitioner under ade out. Cheque No.00001 00/- issued in favour of the com nted to the Bank for discharge s presented to the Bank within s account of insufficient funds vid . After receipt of the cheque, le , intimating the petitioner and f cheque within 15 days from ndeniably, payment of entire che days. The disputed question o s made over to the respondent, 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; heque fails to make payment money to the payee or the the cheque within 15 days of otice.” mplaint, Annexure P-4, filed Court is satisfied that prima Section 138 of NI Act was 12 dated 08.10.2025 for mplainant by the petitioner, e of her debt/liability. The six months and was returned de cheque return memo dated egal notice dated 12.11.2025 calling upon him to make the date of receipt of the eque amount was not made of fact that a blank signed as security cannot be gone KAPIL

into in this Even if, it i to responde record, then NI Act is m account of issuance of circumspect presumption

5. Developers observed th very wide, and diligen exercising i genuineness whether the accused or n

6. 3 SCC 794 R. Banumat

6767-2026(O&M) petition and must be raised onl is accepted that payment of Rs.8 ent as reflected in the statem n also, it cannot be said that no o made out. The complaint is n the part payment. Statutory p f cheque operates and the Court tion in quashing proceedings n that operates in favour of the c Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘S And Promoters and another’ hat even though powers under S its conferment requires the High

t. While examining any compla its power under this provision ca s of the allegations made. The ere exists any sufficient mater not. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Pate where the following pertinent o thi: “22. ……… When dispute involved which need to be a adduce evidence, the complain NI Act ought not to have been ly during the course of trial. 8,35,000/- was indeed made ents of account placed on offence under Section 138 of ot liable to be quashed, on presumption attached to the t must exercise restraint and s, in the wake of legal complainant. Sumit Bansal vs. M/s MGI 2026(2) SCC (Cri) 12, has Section 482 of the Cr.PC are h Court to be more cautious aint or FIR, the High Court annot go embarking upon the e Court must only consider rial to proceed against the el v. State of Gujarat (2020) opinion was given by Justice ed questions of facts are adjudicated after the parties int under section 138 of the n quashed by the High Court KAPIL

7. petitioner h terms of th Section 138 nascent stag

8. 09.07.2026 Kapil

6767-2026(O&M) 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 complaint in CC No. 367 of 2 of the NI Act." Since disputed questions of herself has admitted her liabilit he compromise, the proceedin 8 of the Negotiable Instruments A ge.

Dismissed. (SH

Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable

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 2016 filed under section 138 fact are involved and the ty to pay Rs.10,50,000/- in gs in the complaint under Act cannot be scuttled at this HALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE ed : Yes/No : Yes/No

KAPIL