Hardik Kaushik vs Yugal Sharma

CRM-M-61287 of 2026(O&M) -1-
127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


CRM-M-61287 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:30.10.2026
Hardik Kaushik .....Petitioner
Vs.
Yugal Sharma .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made to quash complaint case
bearing NACT No.114560 of 2025, dated 18.12.2025, titled “ Yugal Sharma Vs.
Hardik Kaushik” filed under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
( hereinafter referred to as 'Act' ) pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, along with order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P.2)
vide which petitioner has been summoned to face the trial and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per version of respondent- complainant as set up in the complaint,
accused- petitioner had availed financial assistance from him for a sum of Rs.15
lakhs during the period April, 2024 to February, 2025 and he had assured to repay
the amount by September, 2025 but he failed to pay the same. Thereafter, in order
RENU
2026.11.03 12:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61287 of 2026(O&M) -2-
to discharge his existing liability, accused issued cheque No.000035 dated
15.10.2025 amounting to Rs.15 lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Palwal in
favour of complainant. However, the cheque was dishonored due to “insufficient
funds” vide bank memo dated 27.10.2025 and thereafter, complainant issued legal
notice dated 20.11.2025 which was served upon the accused on or before
22.11.2025 whereby complainant had demanded the cheque amount. However,
the accused failed to repay the amount and did not reply the notice and thereafter,
complaint was instituted. After the preliminary evidence was led, petitioner-
accused has been summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of the
Act vide order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P.2).
3. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been instituted and
quashing of the impugned order has been sought inter-alia on the following
grounds:-
“a) Because the complainant has concealed material facts from the
Ld. Trial Court to the effect that no loan was ever taken by the
present petitioner from the complainant/respondent, rather the present
case is a case where four business partners dissolved their business,
which was running in losses and despite settlement of the same in all
aspects, blank cheques of the present petitioner were illegally
retained by the respondent/complainant and now used illegally and all
this has been done without present petitioner's notice. There never
existed any enforceable debt or liability upon the present petitioner
pertaining to the respondent/complainant.
RENU
2026.11.03 12:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61287 of 2026(O&M) -3-
b) Because as already mentioned above that the present case is a case
of settlement of accounts of the partners pertaining to financial losses
in business, but the respondent/ complainant had portrayed the
picture that he had extended financial assistance to the petitioner to
the tune of Rs.15 lacs from April 2024 to February 2025 and the
entire amount was to be paid back by the end of September 2025. In
this regard it is submitted that after the settlement was arrived at, a
receipt was executed by the remaining three partners including the
the present respondent/complainant-Yugal Kishore Sharma to the
effect that all the claims have been settled and the documents of the
present petitioner such as cheque, addhaar card, Pan Card and
agreement have been handed over to Subhash Chand, who was the
relative as well as representative of the present petitioner. Meaning
thereby, that the claim of the petitioner was settled earlier itself and a
false picture has been portrayed by him for using the illegally
retained leaf of cheque for undue enrichment. The copy of the receipt
dated 19.03.2025 is appended herewith Annexure P-3, for the kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
c) Because on one side the respondent has averred in the complaint
(P-1) that amount of Rs.15 lacs was to be paid by the petitioner by
September 2025, which was allegedly extended to the petitioner
between April 2024 to February 2025 and on the other side he settled
all the claims on 19.03.2025 by making a specific recital to the effect
that all the documents have been returned and we will not proceed
RENU
2026.11.03 12:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61287 of 2026(O&M) -4-
with any action pertaining to these now. Meaning thereby the
complaint is a bogus document prepared with ulterior motives for
making the present petitioner cough-up money, which will be a
freebie for him.
d) Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration
that the complaint (P-1) in the present case filed by the respondent/
complainant is a very vague one, which do not disclose the mode of
transaction and specific amounts along with specific timings as the
complaint categorically states that the amount was extended between
April 2024 to February 2025, which is almost one full year without
specific dates whatsoever and even reason for extension of loan has
not been averred in the complaint.
e)Because the complainant in question is vague and ambiguous as it
does not disclose the mode, in which the so called financial assistance
was extended by the respondent / complainant to the petitioner over a
period of almost one year, which only goes on to prove that the
complaint in question is a bogus one.
f)Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the
present complaint is nothing but a tool and a device of harassment
designed and developed by the respondent/ complainant against the
present petitioner for no reason and the same is only based upon the
vague and bald averment and more so concealment of material facts.
Further, there is no ground for continuation or issuance of process /
summoning under Negotiable Instruments Act.”
RENU
2026.11.03 12:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61287 of 2026(O&M) -5-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and he has
reiterated the arguments that have been pleaded in the grounds of petition as
reproduced above.
5. However, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and on going
through the material on file, I am of the considered opinion that the present
petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
6. As per version of complainant- respondent, accused had borrowed a
loan from him and cheque was issued by him in discharge of his existing liability
which has been dishonored due to insufficient funds and the contents of the
complaint thus make out a prima facie case under Section 138 of NI Act.
However, the version of the petitioner-accused is that no loan was taken. Infact,
the petitioner alongwith complainant and two more partners were running their
business in which they were suffering losses. The partnership deed was dissolved
by way of settlement Annexure P.3 and at the time of said settlement, three
partners including the complainant were present while Mr. Subhash Chand, a
representative of petitioner- accused was also present. After the accounts were
settled, the cheques and other documents were returned to his representative
namely Subhash Chand but somehow, petitioner has misused the cheque in
question.
7. However, in case, the cheque in question had already been returned
by the complainant- respondent to representative of petitioner namely Subhash
Chand, as to how it came in the hands of the respondent- complainant is not
understandable. As such, it cannot be believed at this stage that the cheque has
been misused by the complainant- respondent. Moreover, the pleas taken by the
RENU
2026.11.03 12:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61287 of 2026(O&M) -6-
petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage and the same have to be established
by the accused- petitioner by leading evidence. As to whether the partnership
deed was dissolved or not and whether the complainant had illegally retained the
cheques and has misused the same are all disputed questions of fact which cannot
be gone into in the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and same
are required to be decided only after an opportunity is given to the parties to lead
evidence. The fact remains that cheque in question bears the signatures of the
petitioner- accused and same has been dishonored and as per Section 118 of NI
Act, a presumption is attached to a cheque that the same had been issued in
discharge of existing debt or liability. The said presumption is rebutable but the
same can be rebutted only by leading evidence and the grounds taken by the
petitioner cannot be accepted at the threshold in a petition under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 while exercising inherent powers. No interference is thus called for
in the present petition. A ccordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Yashvir Singh Rathor)
Judge
October 30, 2026
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RENU
2026.11.03 12:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document