JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMA/7138/2020, titled as Karan Kwatra vs. M/s Swani Motor Services Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N. I. Act'), order dated 10.02.2021 passed in the aforesaid complaint, thereby summoning the present petitioner as an accused to face trial for commission of aforementioned offence and also for quashing of order dated 29.05.2025, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for calling upon the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the cash transaction, on the basis of which, cheque in question was alleged to be issued, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent/complainant on the allegations that in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability, the petitioner, who is Director of M/s Swani Motor Services Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'company'), and the company had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs in favour of the respondent/complainant and the same had been dishonoured, and that the petitioner and the company failed to pay the amount of the cheque in question, despite issuance of notice. Vide order dated 10.02.2021, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned as accused.

3. The petitioner has sought quashing of complaint as well as summoning order mainly on the ground that it was premature. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since vide judgment dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (C) No. 3 of 2020, the period prescribed under proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the N. I. Act was excluded during the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, therefore, the period of limitation to make payment of the cheque in question was supposed to expire on 28.05.2022 and complaint could be filed thereafter only but since it was filed much before that, hence, the complaint as well as summoning order were not sustainable.

4. The aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, does not appear to be tenable at all. The cheque in question had been dishonoured on 10.07.2020 and notice had been issued by the respondent/complainant on 17.07.2020. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner had sent reply thereto on 28.07.2020 and since he failed to make payment of the amount of in cheque in question even after filing reply, therefore, the complaint was filed by the respondent on 17.08.2020. The aforesaid judgment dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has prospective operation and is obviously not applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, the plea that the complaint is premature does not deserve to be accepted.

5. The petitioner has then challenged the order dated 29.05.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application moved by him for reporting the factum of transaction of the amount more than Rs. 2 Lakhs to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department, had been dismissed. The plea as set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 2/complainant has alleged that he had given a sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs in cash to the petitioner and the latter had issued a cheque in lieu thereof to discharge his legally enforceable debt and the said cheque had been dishonoured. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the transaction of Rs. 25 Lakhs was alleged to have been done in cash, as such, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to give intimation of this fact to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department. To fortify his argument, learned counsel has relied upon authority cited as RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B Gunashekar, 2025 SCC Online SC 793.

6. Before delving on the contention as raised by learned