IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48556 of 2024

AKSHYA TATED

Versus

ROSHNI AHUJA

Appearance:

Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for petitioner.

None for the respondent.

WITH

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43314 of 2024

AKSHYA TATED

Versus

SURESH AHUJA

Appearance:

Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for petitioner.

None for the respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51482 of 2024

AKSHYA TATED

Versus

MUKESH AHUJA

Appearance:

Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for petitioner.

None for the respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5708 of 2025

AKSHYA TATED

Versus

MAHESH AHUJA

Appearance:

Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for petitioner.

None for the respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5711 of 2025 AKSHYA TATED Versus SMT. KIRAN AHUJA Appearance:

Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for petitioner.

None for the respondent.

ORDER In all these petitions, facts and question of law involved are similar in nature, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of by this Common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from M.Cr.C No.48556/2024.

Being aggrieved by Complainant Case Nos. SCNIA 90/2024, SCNIA

91/2024, SCNIA 14/2024, SCNIA 89/2024 and SCNIA 92/2024 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul (MP), and registered against the petitioners, the petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C), seeking quashing of the said complaint.

2. The case in short is that the complaint concerns an alleged loan of Rs. 50 lakh given by the complainant, Jaith Mahesh Ahuja, to the accused for construction of a complex at Cement Road, Kothi Bazar. The accused denies ever demanding or applying for such a loan and asserts that any money given was voluntary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the complainant has not specified the date, time, or place of the alleged transaction, nor provided any written agreement. A self-signed cheque for Rs. 8,00,000/- is also mentioned, but there is no proof that it was duly drawn or dishonored. In view of the absence of clear evidence and documentary support, the allegations remain unsubstantiated. The complaint is therefore vague and fails to establish liability against the accused. It is further contended that under section 56 of NI Act Indrosement for part of sum due, no writing on a Negotiable instrument is valid for the purpose of negotiation if such writing purports to transfer only a part of the amount appearing to be due on the instrument; but where such amount has been partly paid note the to that effect may be indorsed on the instrument, which may then be negotiated for the balance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in catena of judgment viz., M/s Prestige Lights ltd. v. State Bank of India : Civil Appeal No.3827/2007 judgment dated 20.08.2007, Mrs.Monica Sunit Ujjai v. Sanchu M. Menon and others : (2023) 1 BC 573, Sanjay Mishra v. Ms.Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki : 2009(4) AIR BOM R 436 and Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. : Criminal Appeal No.724/2025 judgment dated 26.03.2025.

5. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be dismissed for not mentioning the time, date, and place regarding the cheque, despite the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act being in favour of the respondent/complainant.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the complaint cases are pending before the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners have raised objections regarding the complaint, specifically that it does not mention certain details relating to the cheque. It is well settled that such contentions relate to issues of fact and cannot be decided in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS at this stage. There is no dispute regarding the signature of the peti