In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 25.09.2025 Pronounced On: 01.10.2025 Sonia Kapil ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and Others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Arun Kumar Gujjar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. The quashing of order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sonepat, hereinafter being referred to as trial Court only, has been sought.

2. By virtue of above mentioned order in a complaint filed by the respondent No.2/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as the respondent No.2 only, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred as “the NIA”

only, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.

3. Since the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as an accused, she is aggrieved of the above mentioned order.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is a company which was having business dealing with respondent No.4-M/s Compact Lamps Private Limited, and that there was a dispute with regard to payment between the two companies. According to petitioner, the entire affairs of respondent No.4 are being managed by the husband of petitioner, i.e. respondent No.3, and that the respondent No.3 has nothing to do with the business or liability of respondent No.4.

5. According to petitioner, she has been mechanically arrayed as an accused in the complaint by the respondent No.2 along with her husband, and that all the affairs of business of respondent No.4 are being managed by the respondent No.3 only, and therefore, the summoning of petitioner as an accused is illegal. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the learned trial Court in an arbitrary and erroneous manner has issued summons to each and every accused named in the complaint, without considering the fact that there is no specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the learned trial Court has also ignored that the mandate of Section 138 of the NIA has not be complied with, and therefore, the complaint is per se not maintainable at least qua the petitioner.

6. In addition to above, it has also been alleged by the petitioner that very genesis and basis to initiate a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NIA gets vitiated if the notice is defective, and that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has ignored the defects in the notice also, as in the notice, the role played by the petitioner has not been specified and elaborated. While alleging that the filing of complaint against the petitioner DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ is void ab initio, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

7. The respondent No.2 has opposed the above mentioned petition and filed a reply, wherein it has been alleged that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition are the issues which involve the question of fact for which the evidence is to be led by the petitioner during the course of trial. While alleging that the grounds taken in the present petition are false, the respondent No.2 has sought for dismissal of present petition.

8. Heard.

9. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that in order to sustain the complaint under Section 138 of the NIA, in a case wherein the borrower is a company, the complainant is supposed to plead that the person arrayed as an accused is responsible for the day-to-day work of the accused company, or that he is directly involved in the management of that company. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the above mentioned necessary component is missing i