153 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Sukhjinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of Complaint No.NACT/242/2022 dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) filed by complainant/respondent no.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. Sukhinder Singh, and summoning order dated 21.11.2022 and order dated 29.09.2025, whereby, the bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the very same set of allegations, respondent No. 1 had earlier filed a complaint No. 3289-DCP dated 11.11.2021 before the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, pursuant to which FIR No. 161 dated 26.09.2022 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar. He submits that the matter has already been investigated and the challan/final report stands presented before the competent Court. He, thus, submits that the initiation of the present complaint on the same cause of action is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He further submits that the petitioner is admittedly a resident of District Jalandhar, Punjab, whereas the present complaint has been filed before the learned JMIC, Hisar and in these circumstances, compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. was required before summoning the petitioner, as he resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. He submits that learned Magistrate was legally required to first conduct an inquiry or order an investigation before issuing summons to the petitioner and thus, the mandatory procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not followed. He submits that the allegations in the FIR pertain to the alleged fraud committed for an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- in order to secure admission into BAMS and BHMS courses and these very allegations are the foundation of the present complaint. He submits that once the police machinery has already been set in motion and the matter is sub judice pursuant to the filing of the final report, the present complaint is not even maintainable and deserves to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. At the outset, the proceedings arising out of the FIR under the IPC and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in independent fields. The offence under Section 138 of the Act is based upon dishonour of cheque and non-payment of the legally enforceable debt within the statutory period. The mere pendency of an FIR arising out of separate allegations does not bar the continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. The contention that the complaint is based upon the same set of allegations is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this preliminary stage. The petitioner shall have ample opportunity to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court.

4. Parameters for invoking its power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by this Court, have been laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which read as under:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this C