IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 491 of 2025 Reserved on: 04.08.2025 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 Pranav Singh @Moni f...Petitioner Versus Ankit Bajaj ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹. No For the PetCitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondent : NEMO Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition is directed against the order Hdated 01.04.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (learned trial Court) vide which the application filed under Section 302 read with Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI’ Act). It was asserted that the complainant is running a business in the name and style of Ankit Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Ghumarwin. He is the Managing Director of the Comupany. The accused visited the business premises of the ocomplainant on 11.02.2016 and borrowed a sum of ₹11,50,0C00/-. The complainant withdrew ₹10,00,000/- from his account maintained in the Dadhol Agricultural Service Co- operative Society, Padyalag, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., took ₹ 1,50,000/- from his home, and paid them Hto the accused on 11.02.2016. The accused assured to return the amount and issued two different post-dated cheques to the complainant. The complainant presented these cheques to his bank, but they were dishonoured with the remarks “insufÏcient funds”. The accused failed to repay the amount despite receipt of a valid notice of demand. Hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.

3. The complainant died during the pendency of the complaint, and an application was filed before the learned Trial Court for substitution of his legal representatives. It was asserted that the complainant is survived by his two sons, Parkash Chand and Ankit Bajaj, and his wife, Soma Devi. Ankit Bajaj intended to pursue the complaint. Hence, a prayer was made to substitute him as the complainant.

4. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, the applicant having concealed the material facts from the Court, the appl icant having not come to the Court with clean hands, and the applicant being estopped to file the application by his acts, conduct, commissions and omissions. It was asserted that the complaint was filed by deceased Ram Chand as Managing Director of Ankit Bajaj Pvt. Ltd. after obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The application was not filed after taking any such permission; hence, the application was not maintainable. The other legal representatives have not issued the No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the applicant;

therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

5. The learned Trial Court held that Section 256 read with Section 302 entitled a legal representative to come on record. There is no period of limitation for filing the application. One of the legal representatives could pursue the complaint. The complaint did not disclose that it was filed by the Company, and there was no bar to the substitution of legal representative. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was substituted as theu legal representative of the complainant.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present petition, asserting that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of t