##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.16268 of 2023 Reserved on:-01.04.2026

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

SAROJ SURI …Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present :- Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Monika Jalota, Legal Aid Counsel, for respondent No.2.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint bearing No. NIACT/684/2019 dated 05.09.2019, titled as “M/s Bimco Motor versus RS Transport Co. and others” (Annexure P-1), as well as the summoning order dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure P-5), which has been impugned in the present

petition.

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.16268 of 2023 -2-

2. The complainant, M/s Bimco Motors, is running a petrol/ diesel pump at Amritsar–Jammu Highway near Sujanpur, District Pathankot through its partner Sh. Harsh Mahajan, and is well conversant with the facts of the case. Accused No.1 is running a transport company and accused No.2 to 4 are the working partners of accused No.1. The accused used to fill diesel in their vehicles/trucks from the petrol pump of the complainant and a debit-credit account was maintained in the books of the complainant, wherein a total liability of ₹8,14,500/- accrued against the accused towards payment of diesel. In discharge of part of the said legally enforceable liability, the accused issued cheque No.059221 dated 01.07.2019 for ₹3,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Chhabra Palace Branch, Pathankot, assuring that the same would be honoured on presentation. However, when the complainant presented the cheque through its bank, i.e Bank of India, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed” vide return memo dated 02.07.2019. Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused about the dishonour and requested payment, but the accused failed to make the payment. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2019 through counsel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dispatched on 01.08.2019, calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice; the notice was duly received, but the accused sent a false reply and failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that the accused intentionally issued the cheque from a closed account knowing

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.16268 of 2023 -3-

fully well that the same would be dishonoured, thereby committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period, resulting in accrual of cause of action in favour of the complainant, and the complaint was filed within limitation before the competent Court at Pathankot, which has the territorial jurisdiction to try

the same.

3. On the basis of the afore-said complaint, the impugned order dated 21.10.2019 was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pathankot, for summoning of the accused persons.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the above-said order passed by the trial Court, the present petition has been filed by one of the petitioners/accused, namely Saroj Suri, challenging the summoning order qua her and seeking

quashing of the complaint qua her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner, Saroj Suri, has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the complaint, as she is merely a sleeping partner of the firm M/s R.S. Transport Co. and is not involved i