IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1164-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2025 Subham Valia @ Shubham Walia ... Petitioner Vs.

Sarthak Blenders & Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of complaint bearing No.71620 of 2023 titled as ‘Sarthak Blenders and Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Maa Bhagwati Associates and others’ filed under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) as well as summoning order dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged by respondent No.2-complainant, are that respondent No.2 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Indian-Made-Foreign-Liquor (IMFL). The petitioner approached respondent No.2, as partner of M/s Maa Bhagwati Associates (for short ‘association’) and expressed his intentions to purchase IMFL. Accordingly, a credit facility for a period upto 30 days from the date of tax invoice against each supply was extended to the association. As per the ledger account maintained by respondent No.2, a sum of Rs.5,75,433/- was reflected to be outstanding on part of the association. Acknowledging the same, respondent No.3 signed and issued a cheque bearing No. 048215 dated 13.01.2023 for Rs. 5,75,433/-. On presentation for encashment, the same was dishonoured with remarks- ‘Refer to Drawer/ Not Arranged For.’ Subsequently, a legal notice dated 06.02.2023 was served upon the association and when it failed to make the requisite payment, the complaint (supra) was instituted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner and other accused were summoned vide order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was represented before learned trial Court by his counsel, however, warrants of arrest were issued against him on 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has never issued any cheque to respondent No.2. In fact, the cheque bearing No. 048215 (Annexure P-4) was issued and signed by respondent No.3, who has 38% share in profit and loss accrued by the association while the petitioner has only 2% share. According to para 15 of the agreement of associates dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.3 is the authorized representative to operate the bank account. The petitioner is only a member of the association and not an authorized representative of any liquor business. In fact, he only came to know about the liquor business on filing of the present complaint.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the drill of Section 225 BNSS (erstwhile Section 202 Cr.P.C.) was not followed before issuance of process.

Hence, the following question props up for the consideration of this Court-

“Is the drill of Section 225 BNSS mandatory to be followed in cases pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?”

5. A study of Section 225 BNSS is called for, which is reproduced below:

Section 225. Postponement of issue of process.—

(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direct