IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

268

CRR-1651-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 22.12.2025

Abdul Malik ...Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Mohd. Uzair, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Arora, Additional P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh in case arising out of FIR No. 43 dated 28.03.2019, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Manimajra Chandigarh, whereby an application by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking his discharge from the aforementioned case, had been

dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a joint complaint lodged by complainant Kuldeep Bansal along with 17 other

complainants alleging therein that one Rahul Ray had opened a shop under the name of M/s The Light House at Manimajra, Chandigarh by taking a shop on rent from one Karam Singh on 02.11.2018. He started purchasing electrical goods on credit from various persons including complainants/victims herein. He had issued several cheques to the complainants against the dues payable to them. However, on 01.02.2019, he shut down his shop and disappeared. The cheques issued by him were also dishonoured on presentation. While alleging that the above named accused had cheated and defrauded them of a sum of Rs.24,00,725/-, the complainants prayed for taking action the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the course of investigation, the statements of the complainants were recorded and it was revealed that it was the petitioner, who had introduced accused Rahul Ray to the complainants and had aided him to commit the subject offences. The petitioner was nominated as co-accused in the case. The petitioner and accused Rahul Ray were arrested and were subsequently granted concession of bail. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Court. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the case but the same had been dismissed by the learned trial Court by passing the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there is no cogent evidence or material to support the allegations levelled against the petitioner. He has not been named in the FIR. The dispute is of civil nature involving documentary evidence. All the cheques had been issued by co-accused Rahul Ray. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was either his partner or had any intention to defraud the complainants. He was merely acquainted with co-accused Rahul Ray, being an electrician. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not made out at all against him. Learned trial Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, did not take all these facts and circumstances into consideration. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be discharged of the offences for which he has been booked and challaned.

4. Reply has been filed by the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. It is submitted therein and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Chandigarh has initially raised an objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should have approached the Sessions Court first instead of filing the present petition. Apart from maintainability, it is argued by him that there is no infirmit