IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 POONAM BHADOURIA & OTHERS ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA& OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of Criminal Complaint NACT No.5344 of 2022 titled as ‘Poonam Service Station Vs. Bhadauria Carriers Pvt. Ltd.’ registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in partial discharge of its legal liabilities Abhishek Buda Koti @ Reshu an authorised Signatory and Director of the accused company Bhadauria Carriers Pvt. Ltd. issued a cheque bearing No.140095 dated 20.02.2021 for an amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. The said cheque came to be dishonoured leading to the summoning of the petitioners along with the Signatory Abhishek Buda Koti @ Reshu. The copy of the complaint dated 24.02.2022 and summoning order dated 17.05.2022 are attached as Annexures P-1 & P-2 to the petition.

3. The complaint dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) are under challenge in the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that though the petitioners were Directors of the accused company, the mandatory averments which are required to be made in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have not been made inasmuch as there is no mention in the complaint that the petitioners were incharge and responsible for the day-to-day running of the affairs of the Company. In the absence of such an averment being made, the present complaint and summoning order qua the petitioners are liable to be quashed as the signatory of the cheque in question was Abhishek Buda Koti @ Reshu who was effectively running the entire business of the company and the reply to the notice has also been sent by the said authorised signatory and Director namely, Abhishek Buda Koti. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Ashok Shewakramani & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2023, decided on 03.08.2023 and Ravi Dhingra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi &

another, SLP (Crl.) No.13251 of 2023

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant contends that at the time of passing of a summoning order in a criminal complaint, the Court has not to go into the question of sufficiency of evidence for conviction and it is only to see whether a prima facie case is made out. As the petitioners were Directors of the Company, they cannot escape their liability. He therefore prays that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same are discussed hereinunder:-

In Ashok Shewakramani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“4. The main issue canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that though the appellants were directors of the first accused company at a relevant time, the mandatory averments which are required to be made in terms of sub-section (1) of section 141 of the NI Act have not been made. The response of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 is that in substance, in paragraph 7 of the complaint, the said averments are found. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants have not replied to the statutory notice issued under section 138 of the NI Act. In support of the second contention regarding the failure of the appellants to give a reply to the statutory notice, he relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of "S.P.