IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22533-2025 DECIDED ON: 08.05.2025 MAJOR SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Batala in Criminal Complaint bearing No.10 of 2022 titled as "Major Singh V/s Gurmeet Kaur and others" under Section 420, 406, 340, 506, 34, 120-B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Qadian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, whereby respondent no. 2 to 11 have not been summoned to face trial and complaint (Annexure P-1) have been wrongly dismissed and that of impugned judgment dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure P-12) whereby Criminal Revision bearing No.CRR/83/2024 preferred by petitioner have wrongly been dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur being patently illegal, perverse, suffers from illegalities and cryptic and material irregularities and unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed, in the interest of justice.

2. Contention On behalf of the petitioner It is the contented on behalf of counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Magistrate suffers from non-application of judicial mind, as the Magistrate failed to duly consider the material evidence placed on record by the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner had specifically sought proceedings against respondents no. 2 to 11 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 340, 506, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A bare perusal of the criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) clearly reveals that respondents no. 2 to 11 were actively involved in a fraudulent and deceitful conspiracy, whereby they induced the petitioner to part with a substantial sum of money with the dishonest intention of not returning the same. In support of the complaint, the petitioner examined CW2 to CW9, in addition to his own testimony (CW1), thereby placing substantial and corroborative material on record sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against the said respondents. The complaint (Annexure P-1), read in conjunction with the statements of CW1 to CW9, prima facie establishes that respondents no. 2 to 11 acted in concert to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner and obtained unlawful gain with malafide intent. Despite this, the Trial Court, through the impugned order dated 19.04.2024, erroneously concluded that the dispute is of a civil nature and declined to summon the accused. This finding is legally unsustainable, as the Magistrate, at the stage of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, is only required to assess whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court overlooks the settled legal position and the weight of evidence on record, and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Analysis On perusal of the file it is revealed that the complainant/petitioner has filed the complaint alleging that accused/respondent No.2, who is his wife, along with her family members, has cheated him. The complainant/petitioner has ₹

specifically alleged that accused no.1 withdrew an amount of 3,50,000/- from their joint savings account using the ATM card and further borrowed ₹

approximately 1,40,000/- from him on different occasions. It is also alleged that the family members of accused no.1/respondent took money from the complainant/petitioner. However, the complaint is notably silent on any specific act of inducement made by any of the accused persons. For the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to be established, it is essential that there is