IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 08.08.2025 Pronounced on : 17.09.2025 Ramanand Pulavarti ...Petitioner Versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the respondent.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), is for quashing of Complaint bearing NACT No. 22873 of 2018, titled as Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs. Samruddhi Realty Ltd., as well as for quashing of order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-10), whereby the petitioner along with co-accused has been ordered to be summoned to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act, 2007) and all the proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. The aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent- complainant against Samruddhi Realty Ltd. (hereinafter to be mentioned as ‘accused company’) and its directors on the allegations that it had advanced loan to the tune of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- to the accused company. A loan agreement was executed. The accused company and its directors had agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan and to repay the same in installments. Towards the repayment, they had agreed for Electronic Clearing Service (ECS) of funds from the bank account of the accused company. The installments were to be transferred every month to the account of the complainant. The accused company had issued instructions to its banker to debit the installments’ amount from its bank account and to correspondingly credit the account of the complainant through ECS mandate. The electronic funds transfer as initiated by the accused company and its directors with respect to the monthly installment for the month of April, 2018 amounting to Rs.16,31,595/- could not be executed on the ground of ‘balance insufficient’. The intimation of dishonour was received by the complainant and legal notices were issued against the accused company as well as its directors and authorized signatory responsible for day to day affairs, which also included responsibility for ensuring that the liabilities were repaid. However, the accused company and its directors failed to respond to the notices and to repay the amount, thereby compelling the complainant to file the aforesaid complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint and after recording preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court passed the order dated 16.01.2020, thereby summoning the accused company and its directors to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act, 2007. The petitioner was also summoned in the capacity of one of the directors. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.01.2020, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable qua him since he was Chief Executive Officer of a limited liability partnership company namely Essel Finance Advisors and Managers (for short ‘Essel Finance’), which had entered into agreement with the accused company in the year 2016, thereby agreeing to invest a sum of Rs.75 crores with the accused company. A debenture subscription agreement was executed and one Debenture Trust Deed was signed on 30.09.2016, as per which, Essel Finance was given right to appoint one or more of its directors (except Nominee Director) on the Board of the accused company. Subsequently, the Article of Association of the accused company was amended to incorporate the right of Essel Finance to appoint Nominee Director. The petitioner was appointed as a Nominee Director in a non-executive role on behalf of Essel Finance w.e.f. 04.01.2018 and the requisite Form DIR-12 was filled a