IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 Aarti Trehan and another ... Petitioners Versus M/s Super Oils ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Ghai, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.93195 of 2022 titled as M/s Super Oils v. Aarti Trehan and another as well as the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in the abovesaid complaint thereby summoning the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short “NI Act”).

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent- complainant which is a partnership firm on the allegations that the petitioner No.1 is proprietor of petitioner No.2 firm and is managing and controlling affairs of the firm as such being responsible for its day to day work. She had contacted the complainant who is a supplier of industrial oils and lubricants for purchase of the same. As per the terms settled between them, she was to make payment of the purchased goods promptly and was to pay interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner No.1/her firm started making purchases from the respondent-complainant. The payments received from the petitioners was duly credited in the account of the respondent during the period from 01.09.2022 till 21.10.2022. It was alleged that on 31.08.2022 an amount of Rs.5,07,209/- was payable by the petitioners. Thereafter some payments were made which were duly reflected in the record as well as in GST returns. As on 01.11.2022, a sum of Rs.2,11,073/- was payable by the petitioners in order to discharge their legally enforceable liability. The petitioners issued two cheques for sums of Rs.1,13,245/- and Rs.96,146/- respectively in favour of the respondent. These cheques were presented for realization but were returned dishonoured with the report “Payment stopped by drawer”. Legal notice was served upon the petitioners by the respondent. Despite receipt of notice, the petitioners failed to make payment of the cheque amount thereby compelling the respondent to file the aforementioned complaint.

3. After presentation of the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and on adducing preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.03.2023 observed that a prima facie case was made out for summoning the petitioners to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and issued process accordingly.

Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders summoning them as accused as well as the complaint filed by the respondent are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Magistrate ignored the fact that the cheques in question were issued by the petitioners only as security cheques. The last consignment of the goods supplied by the respondent to the petitioners was found to be defective. The petitioners in term of the oral agreement had requested the respondent to settle the matter as defective material was lying with him and to reconcile the books of account but no heed had been paid by the respondent. Since the goods supplied were defective and substandard, no legally enforceable liability existed as against the petitioners and instead of replacing the goods, they had presented the security cheques as a counterblast to a civil suit which had already been filed by the petitioners against the respondent. It is further argued that in view of act and conduct of the petitioners, no legally enforceable liability was existing against the petitioners as on the dat