Preetpal Singh vs M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

1
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
156
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
PREETPAL SINGH
…Petitioner
V/S
M/S HDFC BANK LTD. … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate
with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.(ORAL)
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of complaint bearing No. NACT/8999/2017 dated
11.12.2017 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885
(hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and all subsequent
proceeding arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was facing trial in a complaint under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by respondent-M/s. HDFC
Bank Ltd. The case was based on a loan availed by the petitioner
from the bank regarding which post dated cheques were taken from
the petitioner. Petitioner had been regularly paying the loan
installments every month, but due to financial issues, he could not
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.05 20:24
deposit some of the monthly installments, whereupon the
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

complainant presented the cheque for encashment. The bank had
already seized vehicle of the petitioner and sold it. Entire balance
amount was set off and copy of bank statement of account
(Annexure P-2) showed ‘Nil’ balance towards the petitioner.
Despite this, the bank refused to withdraw the complaint and was
prosecuting the petitioner, though, entire balance amount stood
adjusted against the sale proceeds. Petitioner was facing undue
harassment on account of pendency of the criminal case, though
nothing was due. Thus, the complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom deserved to be quashed.
3. Respondent has filed reply to the petition, contesting
it. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the petition was not
maintainable, disputed questions of facts being involved. The
ground taken by the petitioner was his probable defence which
could not be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The statement of account (Annexure P-2) was not a document
admitted. The statement was disputed by the bank. As per bank
₹
records, outstanding amount in the loan account was 8,89,251/-.
Since, the existence of Annexure P-2 was in dispute and there was
considerable amount outstanding and overdue in the loan account,
it was not a fit case to exercise inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal complaint.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.05 20:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

4. Annexure P-1 is the complaint under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.
through its authorized officer against the petitioner. It has been
alleged therein that accused availed CTG loan facility from the
complainant-bank and executed loan-cum-hypothication
agreement. In order to discharge his legal liability, he issued
cheque No. 00028 dated 06.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.
1,78,470/- drawn on HDFC Bank Branch, Tibri Road, GDPS. The
cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured for
insufficient funds, vide memo dated 06.11.2017. Complainant then
served a legal notice dated 17.11.2017 upon the accused through
his counsel via registered post but accused failed to make the
payment, whereuponp, the complaint was instituted.
5. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson
Securities Ltd. and Others (2000) 2 SCC 745 , the Hon’ble Apex
Court noticed the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of
NI Act as under:-:
“(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an
account maintained by him in a bank for payment
of a certain amount of money to another person
from out of that account for the discharge of any
debt or other liability;
(ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.05 20:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
validity, whichever is earlier;

4
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

(iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because the amount of money standing to the
credit of the account is insufficient to honour the
cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to
be paid from that account by an agreement made
with the bank;
(iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque makes a demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving a notice in writing,
to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the
receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make
payment of the said amount of money to the payee
or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15
days of the receipt of the said notice.”
6. Having gone through the complaint, Annexure P-1,
filed by respondent against the petitioner, the Court is satisfied that
a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Section
138 of NI Act. Cheque No. 00028 dated 06.11.2017 for an amount
₹
of 1,78,470/- was issued in favour of the complainant-bank by the
petitioner, who availed loan facility, for discharge of his
debt/liability. The cheque was presented to the bank immediately
and was returned unpaid, on account of ‘insufficient funds’ vide
cheque return memo dated 06.11.2017 . After receipt of the cheque,
legal notice dated 17.11.2017 was issued, intimating the petitioner
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.05 20:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

and calling upon him to make payment of cheque within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the notice. Payment of the cheque
amount was not made within 15 days.
7. The prayer for quashing is based on Annexure P-2,
said to be the statement of loan account in respect of commercial
vehicle Bharat BENZ 3123.
8. It has been argued that the statement of account
reflected the loan status “closed”. The statement of account is not a
document admitted by the respondent, which seriously disputes it
₹
and claims that a sum of 1,78,470/- was still due and pending in
the loan account. Whether the vehicle purchased from the amount
of loan availed by the petitioner has indeed been seized and sold by
the respondent bank and whether the sale proceeds have indeed
been adjusted against the balance outstanding in the loan account
are disputed questions of fact, which require adjudication on the
basis of oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties
during the course of trial. There are statutory presumptions
attached to the cheque in question and the Court must exercise
restraint and circumspection in quashing the proceedings in the
complaint, in the wake of legal presumptions that operate in favour
of the complainant/respondent.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sumit Bansal vs. M/s
MGI Developers And Promoters and another’ 2026(2) SCC (Cri)
12, has observed that even though powers under Section 482 of the
AJAY GOSWAMI
Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Court to be
2026.11.05 20:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

more cautious and diligent. While examining any complaint or
FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision
cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations
made. The Court must only consider whether there exists any
sufficient material to proceed against the accused or not.
10. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
(2020) 3 SCC 794 where the following pertinent opinion was given
by Justice R. Banumathi:
“22. ……… When disputed questions of facts are
involved which need to be adjudicated after the
parties adduce evidence, the complaint under section
138 of the NI Act ought not to have been quashed by
the High Court by taking recourse to section 482
CrPC, 1973. Though, the Court has the power to
quash the criminal complaint filed under section 138
of the NI Act on the legal issues like limitation. etc.
criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the NI
Act against Yogeshbhai ought not to have been
quashed merely on the ground that there are inter se
disputes between Appellant 3 and Respondent 2.
Without keeping in view the statutory presumption
raised under section 139 of the NI Act, the High
Court, in our view, committed a serious error in
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.05 20:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CRM-M-5596-2020 (O&M)

quashing the criminal complaint in CC No. 367 of
2016 filed under section 138 of the NI Act."
11. The disputed questions of facts raised by the
petitioner are best left to be adjudicated by learned trial Court. This
Court must refrain from usurping the jurisdiction of the trial Judge,
while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
cannot be quashed. The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
12. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

03.11.2026 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.05 20:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document