IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parmod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Devender Singh ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 13.05.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.05.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 22.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate and Ms. Komal Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing Criminal Complaint bearing CIS No. NACT-242 of 2017 (Annexure P-1), titled as Devender Singh v. Parmod Kumar, filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated

09.10.2017 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned complaint was filed by the respondent- complainant with the allegations that in April, 2017, the present petitioner had approached the respondent for the purpose of lending him an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The respondent had agreed to the same and had given the aforementioned amount of money in cash to the petitioner. He had assured to repay the same within a period of one month. As he could not pay the same within the said time, then on demand of the respondent, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 385205 dated 10.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in favour of the respondent. The said cheque was presented by the respondent before his banker for realization. However, the same had been received back with the remarks ‘kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again’, vide memo dated 13.06.2017.

3. The respondent contacted the petitioner, who assured him to present the cheque again after one month, which was so done but was returned again on 29.07.2017 with the remarks ‘funds insufficient and dormant account’. The statutory notice to the petitioner was also issued but to no avail, thereby compelling the respondent to file the aforementioned complaint.

4. After presentation of the complaint and recording of preliminary evidence, the learned trial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 09.10.2017, issued process against the petitioner summoning him to face the trial.

Aggrieved from the same, the present petition has been filed.

5. It is argued by learned by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while entertaining the complaint and passing the summoning order, the learned trial Magistrate ignored the fact that the respondent was under an obligation to serve notice under Section 138(b) of the N. I. Act within 30 days from the date of receipt of information qua dishonour of cheque. The cheque in dispute was dishonoured on 29.07.2017 but the legal notice was issued only on 29.08.2017 i.e. after 31 days from the date of receipt of information by him and on this very ground itself, the complaint was not sustainable. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned summoning order as well as the complaint are liable to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities cited as Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 332 and Sivakumar v.

Natarajan, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 365

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that the complaint and the summoning order do not