IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jain ......Petitioner Versus Sandeep Mehra ......Respondent

1. Date when Order / Judgement was reserved 22.01.2026 2. Date of Decision / pronouncement of Order / 11.02.2026 Judgement

3. Date of uploading Order / Judgement 11.02.2026

4. Whether operative part or full Order / FULL Judgement is pronounced

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full Order / NOT APPLICABLE Judgement, and reasons thereof

6. Whether Speaking/Reasoned YES 7. Whether Reportable YES CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jain, petitioner-in-person.

Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, Amicus Curiae.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner – Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jain has filed instant petition under Section 528 and 395 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of an interlocutory order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, in CRM No. 129 of 2024, in case titled as “Dr. Rajesh Jain v. Sandeep Mehra”, whereby complainant/petitioner Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jain has been directed to engage a trained advocate and to make any future appearance in the matter only through an advocate.

Besides, praying for issuance of directions to the learned District Judge, Jind, as also the Trial Court Magistrate, petitioner has prayed for grant of compensation also.

FACTUAL MATRIX:-

2. Relevant facts of the present case, as this Court has been able to culled out, are that in the year 2018 the petitioner had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’), bearing case No. NACT-694-2024, against Sandeep Mehra (respondent herein) regarding bouncing of a cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said case was finally decided by the Court of Mr. Vivek Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, vide judgement dated 12.11.2024, acquitting the accused/respondent Sandeep Mehra. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner firstly filed CRM-A-97-2025, challenging the judgement dated 12.11.2024, seeking leave to appeal.

In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court, in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-70 of 2025, decided on 08.04.2025, reported as 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2737710 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320], CRM-A-97-2025 was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 09.07.2025, directing the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, to treat the said leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same. Thereupon, said dispute is pending adjudicating before the lower Appellate Court as CRA No. 393 of 2025, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.

3. During pendency of Complaint No. NACT-694-2024, under Section 138 of the NI Act, petitioner filed an application dated 05.09.2024, under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., for punishing the accused/respondent Sandeep Mehra, for furnishing false information in the course of judicial proceedings, willfully and intentionally, by false statements under oath, knowing them to be false, and willfully obstructing the administration of justice.

When said application came up for consideration on

15.05.2025, impugned order was passed by the Court of Mr. Vivek Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, which reads as under:-

“CNR No.HRJN030041782024 CIS No.CRM/129-2024 Dr. Rajesh Jain Versus Sandeep Mehra Present: Complainant Dr. Rajesh Jain in person.

Shri Ankush Sharma, Advocate for accused Sandeep.

Arguments on the application under Section

195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. not advanced.

The court asked the complainant to engage a counsel so that he may be in the position to represent his case properly before the Court. The complainant has been offered to take help of legal aid counsel. The complainant submitted that he is in the good position to represent his case and well conversant with the law. The complainant stated that he does not want to engage a la