Neeraj Dhanda v. Gagandeep Singh Swani
Case Details
CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126+213 CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 14.05.2025 Gagandeep Singh Swami Neeraj Dhanda Versus . . . Petitioner(s) . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate and Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate and Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate, for the respondent(s). **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the summoning order dated 09.10.2023, passed in COMA/49283/2023, titled as “Neeraj Dhanda v. Gagandeep Singh Swani” (Annexure P-1), whereby, petitioner has been summoned u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’). Besides, a prayer has also been made for quashing of COMA/49283/2023, dated 09.10.2023, titled as, “Neeraj Dhanda v. Gagandeep Singh Swani”, filed u/s 138 of NI Act (Annexure P-2). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Ltd. Prima facie, it appears that the present complainant has no locus standi to prosecute the accused and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed. Therefore, I am inclined to invoke the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this particular case and accordingly, this petition stands allowed. It is ordered that the complaint against the petitioner pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV Ernakulam as C.C. No.235/2016 and the proceedings thereof stand quashed.” In Prashanth.S’s case (supra), Single Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in its judgment dated 25.11.2004, observed as under:- “12. In this case, the complainant is not neither a 'payee' nor a 'holder in due course' of the disputed cheque and the cheque is in the name of M/s.Krish Associates, where the petitioner is a partner. Therefore, by applying the above proposition of law, the complaint given by the complainant against the petitioner is not maintainable under Section 138 and 142 of the Netotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court has not considered the above said aspects and has taken cognizance. Therfore, the order of taking cognizance based on the present complaint is abuse of process of law and is not in accordance with law and hence, the present complaint is liable to be quashed. JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) - 6 - 13.
Arguments
By referring to the complaint, Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner submits that Neeraj Dhanda (respondent herein) being complainant filed a complaint against the accused – Gagandeep Singh Swami (petitioner herein) by alleging that accused had issued A/c payee cheque dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.C1), of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, of ICICI JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) - 2 - Bank, payable to ‘Sadem Industries’, and on bouncing of the same, required legal notice dated 06.09.2023 (Ex.C5) was issued to the accused, namely; Gagandeep Singh Swami (petitioner herein). In the said legal notice, it has been averred that ‘my client (complainant in the complaint) and you (accused-Gagandeep Singh Swami) were having friendly relations, and for obtaining financial help of Rs.10.00 lakh (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) you received the amount under the assurance to repay the same within a short period.’ Thus, in order to discharge the legal liability, cheque bearing No.033380, dated 21.08.2023, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Nehru Sidhant Kendra, Trust Building, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, was issued by the accused/petitioner in favour of the client of the Advocate, who sent the legal notice. However, on presentation of the said cheque, in Induslnd Bank, Ludhiana, for its encashment, same was reported to be dishonoured vide memo dated 24.08.2023, with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. It is, thereupon, after issuance of legal notice, impugned complaint was instituted before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, to claim the cheque amount, which was issued in favour of the ‘Sadem Industries’. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that learned trial Court has erred in observing that ‘cheque was drawn in favour of the complainant’, whereas, perusal of the cheque would show that same has been drawn in favour of ‘Sadem Industries’ and not complainant. Thus, on the basis of all the material appended with the complaint, and the contents mentioned therein, counsel for the petitioner argues that neither complainant is a ‘payee’, nor the ‘holder’ of the cheque in JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) - 3 - due course, nor any legally enforceable debt is owed to him by the accused. Therefore, legal notice, complaint and the summoning order issued thereon are against the admitted factual position on record. 4. By stretching out his submissions, counsel for the petitioner further argues that at best, it could be submitted that the alleged loan was advanced by partnership firm, i.e., Sadem Industries (now M/s Saidaen Corp.) and not by the complainant. Thus, it could be alleged that the cheque was drawn in favour of M/s Sadem Industries, and thereupon, it is only M/s Sadem Industries, who could issue legal notice and file criminal complaint also, through its partner ‘Neeraj Dhanda’ or any other partner. To make it more clear, no such legal notice could ever be issued nor the complaint could have been filed by the present complainant (respondent herein), towards whom the petitioner never owed any legally enforceable liability to discharge the debt amount. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon certain judgments rendered by this High Court as well as by other High Courts, which are as follows:- (I) (II) ARVIND SINGH RAJPOOT v. M/S INTERSIGHT HOLIDAYS PVT. LTD. AND ORS., CRL.MC NO.984 OF 2018, D.O.D.: 16.08.2023. PRASHANTH.S v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CRL.O.P. NO.21286 OF 2022 AND CRL.M.P. NO.13867 OF 2022, D.O.D.: 25.11.2024. (III) MEDISYS BIOTECH PVT. LTD. v. D.S. NUTRITION AND ANOTHER, 2024 SCC ONLINE P&H 12907 : [CRM-M-29316- 2024, D.O.D.: 17.07.2024). (IV) CHARANJEET SINGH v. KULWANT SINGH, 2025(1) LAW HERALD 441 : LAW FINDER DOC ID #2687915 : [CRM-M- 54012-20223 : D.O.D.: 16.01.2025] 6. While opposing the contention of counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate and Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) - 4 - the respondent, submit that the judgment cited by the petitioner’s counsel, are not applicable. Moreover, it is admitted position that the complainant – Neeraj Dhanda, is the partner of the firm ‘M/s Sadem Industries’, and therefore, the defect pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel is curable by seeking amendment. For the said purpose, an appropriate application has already been moved by the complainant before this Court, i.e., CRM-20009-2025, wherein, prayer has been made to grant permission to file application seeking correction in the memo of parties of the complaint before the trial Court. 7. It is further argued that once it has been mentioned in the memo of parties of the complaint, ‘Neeraj Dhanda’, partner of M/s Sadem Industries (now M/s Saidaen Corp.), having its registered office at NH-1, GT Road, Village Rajgarh, Doraha, District Ludhiana, then being a partner of the firm, the complainant is entitled to file complaint and consequently, has filed the same as per law. It is also argued that there is no definite law, denying complainant that the complaint would not be filed by any partner of the firm, even if the cheque has been issued in the name of the firm. 8. Counsel for the respondent relies upon M/s Sree Gokulam Chit Fund (P) Limited v. M/s Gem Sanitary and Ors., Crl. O.P. No.30699 of 2019, DOD: 15.03.2023 : Law Finder Doc Id #2417980 of Madras High Court, and Amandeep Singh Pahwa v. Ever Onward Private Limited, 2024(1) PLR 122 : Law Finder Doc Id #2514568 of this High Court. 9. I have heard the submissions and gone through the relevant JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12168-2025 (O&M) - 5 - record, and also the judgments cited by both the sides and more specific the cheque in question, legal notice and the copy of complaint, and thereupon, examined the impugned summoning order dated 09.10.2023 (P-1). 10. In Arvind Singh Rajpoot’s case (supra), it was argued that the certain cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- each, were issued in the name of ‘Intersight Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd.’, but on dishonouring of the cheque, legal notice was issued by the Director of Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd. and complaint was also filed by Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd. In the paragraph No.7 of the Arvind Singh Rajpoot’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Kerala High Court, observed in the judgment dated 16.08.2023, as under:- “7. On perusal of the complaint, nothing stated as to change of name of the Intersight Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. to Intersight Holidays Pvt.
Decision
In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the pending proceedings in C.C. No.21 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Allikulam building, Egmore, Chennai are quashed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” In Medisys Biotech’s case (supra), this High Court, made certain observations therein and also by relying upon the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.R. Sukumar v. Sunaad Raghuram,