149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.07.2025 MANOJ KUMAR MANGLA ALIAS MANOJ MANGLA AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS V/S RAKESH KUMAR DHAMIJA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’) dated 16.11.2019 bearing No.COMA/30061/2019 (Annexure P-1), filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana as well as the summoning order dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioners on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing No.001641 dated 06.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.10 lakh, issued in favour of the complainant/respondent by the petitioners, in discharge of the liability and the petitioners were subsequently summoned by the learned trial Court. He further 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the dishonour of the cheque does not constitute a valid basis for the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. Additionally, he submits that the petitioners are residing outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court and the learned trial Court summoned him without properly investigating the discrepancies, leading to a wrongful initiation of legal proceedings.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, 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. Having heard 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 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 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 is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examin