##PAGE1##

CRM-M-20676-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.130

CRM-M-20676-2026

Date of Decision: 25.05.2026

PAWANDEEP KAUR ...Petitioner

Versus

AJAIB SINGH ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present:- Mr. Hasrat Brar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the

impugned complaint bearing No. NACT/434/2025 dated 03.12.2025 titled as

“Ajaib Singh Vs. Pawandeep Kaur” under Sections 138/142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, including the impugned summoning order

dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-5), in the interest of justice.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the accused

was known to him being the wife of Lovedeep Singh and had approached

the complainant in the last week of November, 2022 seeking financial

assistance for completing the formalities for obtaining visa of Canada. It has

been alleged that the accused assured the complainant that the amount would

be returned within two and a half years after her settlement in Canada.

ANU

2026.05.26 17:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-20676-2026 2

The main allegation in the complaint is that the complainant acceded to the

request of the accused and paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash to the accused

on 01.12.2022 at the residence of the complainant after withdrawing the said

amount from his account maintained with Punjab National Bank, branch

office at Zira, District Ferozepur. It has further been alleged that in discharge

of the aforesaid legally enforceable liability, the accused on the same day

issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.440451 dated 03.09.2025 for an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mudki Road,

Bagha Purana, District Moga, Punjab in favour of the complainant. It has

further been alleged that when the said cheque was presented for

encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds

Insufficient”. Thereafter, after compliance of the statutory requirements

under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the present complaint came to be filed

against the accused-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner has challenged the impugned complaint as well as the summoning

order dated 03.12.2025 on various grounds. It has been argued that the

present complaint is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and has

been filed with mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the petitioner in

connection with matrimonial disputes between the parties. The primary

contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the essential

ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not

satisfied in the present case, inasmuch as the cheque in question was neither

issued nor signed by the petitioner. It has been contended that in the absence

of issuance and signatures on the cheque by the petitioner, no legally

ANU

2026.05.26 17:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-20676-2026 3

enforceable liability can be fastened upon her. It has further been argued that

the petitioner has been residing abroad since the year 2023 and had not

visited India thereafter, which fact is stated to be duly supported from her

passport. Accordingly, it is contended that the alleged issuance of cheque

dated 03.09.2025 by the petitioner is inherently improbable and falsifies the

very substratum of the complaint. Learned counsel has also contended that

the cheque in question has been misused and manipulated by the

complainant and has been presented with ulterior motives. It has further

been argued that the present complaint is merely a counterblast to the

matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and her husband and is the

result of collusion between the complainant and the husband of the

petitioner. C