IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.10.2025 RAJPAL BAJAJ …. PETITIONER V/S RANJEET SINGH …. RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present : Dr. Rau PS Girwar, Advocate Ms. Archana Rau, Advocate Ms. K.T.Rau, Advocate Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of complaint bearing No.NACT/25/2024 (Annexure P-6) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’) and summoning order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) ) passed by the learned trial Court, Bathinda.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that material ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 138 of NI Act are not available and therefore cognizance could not have been taken against the present petitioner. Petitioner had helped the complainant/respondent in resolving the financial dispute between the respondent and one Rinku property dealer. In order to facilitate the dispute resolution, the petitioner had given one blank cheque without mentioning any date as a security. It was agreed between the petitioner and the respondent that once the dispute is settled that cheque would be returned to the petitioner. After the dispute was resolved, the respondent collected an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash from petitioner wherein the amount of bricks was also paid between both parties. Respondent had also given one receipt dated 08.09.2023 mentioning the settlement of debt liability regarding both bricks and the disputed amount. Respondent despite having received all the amount and despite the receipt of discharge of financial liability still presented the cheque before the bank which got dishonoured, ensuing which the petitioner was served with legal notice dated 02.12.2023 under Section 138 of NI Act read with Section 420 IPC. Respondent thereafter registered complaint under Section 138 of NI Act.

3. Heard.

4. After hearing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the case file, this Court finds that the disputed questions of facts are involved in the present petition.

5. The issue whether summons and trial notice should have been quashed on the basis of factual defences and as a corollary therefrom, what should be the responsibility of the quashing Court and whether it must weigh the evidence presented by the parties, at a pre-trial stage, has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another 2022 SCC Online SC 513 while speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, in the following terms:-

"11. The legal presumption of the cheque having been issued in the discharge of liability must also receive due weightage. In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint. The opinion of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan for a three judges Bench in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan would at this stage, deserve our attention:-

"26. ... we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant."

12. At any rate, whenever facts are disputed the truth should be allowed to emerge by weighing the evidence. On this aspect, we may benefit by referring to the ratio in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat where the following pertinent opinion was given by Justice R. Banumathi:-

"22. ......When disputed questions of facts are