##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.17841 of 2021 Reserved on:-24.03.2026

Pronounced on:-06.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 07.04.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

RAJESH MAHAJAN ALIAS LATI …Petitioner

Versus

JATINDER SINGH …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present :- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manju Fulara, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the criminal complaint bearing CIS No. N.I. Act/703/220 dated 08.12.2020 titled as “Jatinder Singh vs Rajesh Singh” along-with the summoning order dated 04.01.2021, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for an offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the accused was having cordial relations with him and, in the first week of November, 2019, approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.10,00,000/-,

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.17841 of 2021 -2-

which was advanced by the complainant in cash. It is alleged that the accused failed to repay the said amount despite repeated demands and, in discharge of his legally enforceable liability, issued cheque No.055199 dated 14.07.2020 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Pathankot. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed” vide memo dated 22.07.2020 and again on its re-presentation in September, 2020. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 20.10.2020 upon the accused, but despite receipt of the same, the accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, leading to the filing of the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded and, on the basis of the material placed on record, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, vide impugned order dated 04.01.2021, found sufficient grounds to proceed and accordingly, summoned the accused Rajesh Mahajan to face trial for the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the cheque in question was not issued from any account maintained by him, rather the same pertains to account No.912010040276471 maintained exclusively in the name of his wife, namely Vandana Mahajan. It is submitted that the said account was solely in her individual name and the petitioner is neither the account holder nor a joint holder thereof. It is, further, contended that since the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the petitioner, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted against him. On this basis, it is

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.17841 of 2021 -3-

argued that the petitioner cannot be made liable for prosecution under the said provision and the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order

deserve to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment titled “Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 712”, to contend that where a cheque is issued from an account not maintained by the accused, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not fulfilled and no

liability can be fastened upon such person.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the plea raised by the petitioner that the account in question belongs exclusively to his wife is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings