JUDGMENT

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for setting aside/ quashing of impugned order dated 06.02.2026 bearing CNR No.PBLD010211992023, having CIS No.CRR-880-2023, whereby the criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed against the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 bearing CNR No.PBLD030460232023 having CIS No.CRM-23633- 2023 whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was disposed of without giving direction for registration of the FIR. Further prayer has been made for setting aside/quashing of impugned order dated 09.06.2023 bearing CNR No.PBLD030460232023 having CIS No.CRM-23633-2023 whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was disposed of without giving direction for registration of the FIR.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had approached the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against unknown accused. The petitioner has mentioned in the application that she made a complaint to ACP, E.O. Wing on 11.05.2022 disclosing therein that her husband, namely, Ishwar Dass Garg being Managing Director of M/s MRG Auto Private Limited, dealt with various banks in normal course of business including HDFC Bank Limited. The Bank had filed one complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the company, husband of petitioner and the petitioner wherein certain documents were filed on which purported signatures of the petitioner appeared, however, the petitioner had not signed any such documents. On verification, vide report dated 05.05.2022, it was found that the signatures appeared on copies of those documents on the judicial file were not of the petitioner and thus, it was found that bank officials had forged the signatures of the petitioner with a view to make her an accused in criminal complaint. The petitioner also moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 02.03.2023, however, no FIR was registered on her complaint. It was alleged that the original documents were in the possession of the bank which require confiscation and verification by sending the same to FSL. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register the FIR and the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana had disposed of the same vide order dated 09.06.2023 by treating it as a complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 06.02.2026 had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing of the abovementioned orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has no source or means to collect the evidence and that the original documents bearing purported signatures of petitioner are in the possession of the Bank. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has also not considered that the original documents were not produced by the Bank in the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act seeking opportunities and thus, it is impossible for the petitioner to gather incriminating evidence and identify the culprits. He has submitted that the registration of the FIR was imperative to advance cause of justice. He has relied upon the decision passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh’, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and has submitted that registration of the FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as the information given by the petitioner to police discloses commission of cognizabl