IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Rashmi ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Veena Mittal ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of criminal complaint bearing No. COMA/551 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 titled as ‘Veena Mittal Vs. Rashmi’ which is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha, District Patiala alongwith the summoning order dated 11.10.2022, whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondent–complainant had earlier instituted a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging therein that the petitioner had borrowed certain amounts from her. It is submitted that, as per the allegations in the said complaint, the petitioner had allegedly taken a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.04.2019 and a further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 07.05.2021, thereby aggregating to Rs.7,00,000/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner had repaid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on 09.11.2021, leaving an outstanding principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. Learned counsel further submits that, in discharge of the aforesaid liability, the petitioner allegedly issued a cheque bearing No. 399091 dated 24.08.2022 for an amount of Rs.2,72,500/- in favour of the respondent–complainant. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on 03.09.2022 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. It is contended that, thereafter, the respondent–complainant initiated the aforesaid complaint proceedings and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in the said case.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that as per the averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the complaint, the principal amount due and recoverable from the petitioner was only Rs.2,50,000/-. In such circumstances, the cheque issued for a sum of Rs.2,72,500/- cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, to the extent claimed. It is thus submitted that, in the absence of a legally enforceable debt, corresponding to the cheque amount, the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not satisfied and consequently, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, reported as (2023) 1 SCC 578, wherein it has been held that for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the cheque must have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

“30. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below:

(i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation;

(ii) If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque;

(iii) When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted;

(iv) The first respondent has made