114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.07.2025 SOMYA SHARMA ...PETITIONER V/S A P SALES CORPORATION ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528of BNSS, seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed under Sections138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’) dated10.03.2021 bearing No.NACT/27/2021 (Annexure P-1), filed beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pataudi as wellas the summoning order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-7).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia,contends that a complaint under Sections 138/142 ofthe NI Act was filed against the petitioner on the ground of dishonouring of cheques bearing Nos.101292 dated 04.02.2021 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-, 101287 dated 05.02.2021 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, 101289 dated 05.02.2021 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, 101280 dated 06.02.2021 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, 101288 dated 07.02.2021 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, 101290 dated 08.02.2021 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and 101286 dated 08.02.2021 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Gurgaon, issued in favour of the complainant/respondent by the petitioner in discharge of the liability and the petitioner was subsequently summoned by the learned trial Court. He further contends that the impugned summoning order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P- 2) learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pataudi is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the aforementioned order has been passed without following the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C. which requires the Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process and either conduct an inquiry himself or direct an investigation and the same is mandatory when the accused is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, the present petition is being decided in limine without issuing notice to the respondent in order to save judicial time of the Court and also the litigation costs of the respondent.

4. Further from the perusal of the paper-book, 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 of BNSS mandatory to be followed in cases pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?”

5. A study of Section 225 of 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 hisjurisdiction, 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 direction for investigation shall be made,—

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 223.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of