IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11992-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Pankaj Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kumar @ Chodhri ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Swarn Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

CRM-9701-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-9702-2025 Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is for placing on record the summoning order dated

22.09.2022 as Annexure P-3.

Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-11992-2025 (O&M)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’) read with Section 420 IPC, dated 30.08.2022 bearing No.NACT/110/2022 (Annexure P-1), filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guruharsahai, Ferozepur.

MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.03 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Sections 138/142 of the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC was filed against the petitioner on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing No.000832 dated 15.06.2022 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- issued in favour of the complainant/respondent by the petitioner in discharge of the liability. Thereafter, the complaint (supra) was filed and the petitioner was subsequently summoned by the learned trial Court vide summoning order dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent are an abuse of the process of law, as they are based on unjustified claims and procedural irregularities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dishonor of the cheque does not constitute a valid basis for the complaint filed under Sections 138/142 of the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC. Additionally, he submits that the petitioner is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and the summoning order has been passed without following the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

5. 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.

5.1. 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 of BNSS mandatory to be followed in cases pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?”

6. 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 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 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 unde