M/S Haryana Agro Food And Others vs Hafed Kaithal Through Its Distt. Manager

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(120)
CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026
M/S HARYANA AGRO FOOD AND OTHERS
… Petitioners
Versus
HAFED KAITHAL THROUGH ITS DISTT. MANAGER
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Aarush Neeraj Vaid, Advocate
for the respondent.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
CRM-32664-2026
1.  The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed
under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking leave to place on record the zimni
orders passed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the form of
Annexures A-1 to A-55.
2.  Heard on the application.
2.1.  For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The zimni orders are taken on record as Annexures A-1 to A-55 , subject
to all just exceptions.
Main Case
1.  The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashing of Complaint Case No.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
NACT-1095 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019, pending before the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal ( Annexure P-4 ), as well as the
summoning order dated 26.02.2021 ( Annexure P-5 ), whereby the
petitioner, along with the other accused, has been summoned to face trial
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was running
a workshop for repair and manufacture of agricultural implements and had
no prior experience in running a rice sheller. He came in contact with
Ashok Kumar, partner of M/s Kissan Rice Land, whose rice sheller had
been declared defaulter by HAFED. On Ashok Kumar’s representation,
the petitioner agreed to have the sheller operated in his name under the
proprietorship of a newly constituted firm, namely M/s Haryana Agro
Foods, and the sheller was accordingly taken on lease for two years.
According to the petitioner, the actual management and operation of the
rice mill remained with Ashok Kumar and the other partners/sureties,
namely Ashok Garg, Sushil, Tarsem Chand, Raj Kumar and Jai Bhagwan,
while the petitioner was merely projected as its proprietor. The eight
cheques in question were obtained from the petitioner as security, upon
assurance of HAFED officials and Ashok Kumar that the same would not
be presented for encashment. Subsequently, an FIR under Sections 406,
409 and 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner and others, in which
the petitioner remained in custody for about 11 months before being
granted regular bail by this Court. HAFED thereafter instituted a recovery
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
suit for 7,02,91,001/- and also initiated proceedings under Section 138 of
₹
the NI Act on the basis of the said security cheques.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cheques in
question were pre-signed blank cheques, obtained from the petitioner by
the partners/sureties of the firm by keeping him completely in the dark as
to the underlying transactions. It is submitted that the said cheques were
furnished merely as security and have subsequently been misused by the
complainant by presenting the same for encashment, despite there being
no legally enforceable liability of the petitioner towards the complainant.
Learned counsel further submits that the alleged misappropriation of
paddy is already the subject matter of an FIR registered under Sections
406 and 420 IPC against the petitioner and other persons. It is also pointed
out that the complainant has instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of
₹ 7,02,91,001/- in respect of the very same alleged liability. It is, thus,
contended that the complainant has simultaneously resorted to criminal
prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, criminal proceedings arising
out of the alleged misappropriation and civil proceedings for recovery of
the same amount. According to learned counsel, permitting all such
proceedings to continue on the same factual foundation would amount to
an impermissible multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of the process
of law. It is further argued that the petitioner was merely a
nominal/proprietary figure, whereas the actual affairs of the rice sheller
were being managed by the other persons associated with M/s Kissan Rice
Land. On these premises, learned counsel prays that the impugned
complaint and consequential proceedings be quashed.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-complainant has vehemently opposed the petition and
submitted that the pendency of criminal and civil proceedings arising from
the same transaction, by itself, constitutes no ground for quashing a
prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is contended that the
cheques admittedly bear the signatures of the petitioner and, therefore, the
statutory presumptions arising under the NI Act operate in favour of the
complainant, subject to rebuttal in accordance with law. Learned Senior
counsel further submits that the plea that the cheques were issued as
security, or that they were allegedly misused by the complainant, involves
disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is argued that the
allegations regarding the petitioner's limited role in the affairs of the firm,
the alleged involvement of the other partners/sureties and the
circumstances in which the cheques were obtained are matters requiring
appreciation of evidence. The filing of an FIR or a recovery suit does not
extinguish the complainant's independent statutory remedy under Section
138 of the NI Act, provided the essential ingredients of the offence are
otherwise satisfied. Learned Senior counsel accordingly submits that no
exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court is made out and prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable
length and, with the able assistance rendered, have carefully scrutinized the
pleadings, the paper-book and the material placed on record.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
5.1. The trial is presently at a nascent stage and, at this preliminary
juncture, this Court is not persuaded to conclude that the impugned
complaint has been instituted with the oblique motive of wreaking
vengeance upon the petitioner or with a view to securing an undue
advantage in the pending civil proceedings. It is trite that the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashing criminal proceedings is of an
exceptional character and is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection
and only in cases where the continuation of the proceedings would
manifestly amount to an abuse of the process of law or where, even
accepting the allegations in their entirety and at face value, no offence is
made out.
5.2. The contours of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(now Section 528 of the BNSS) are well settled. The inherent power is not
intended to facilitate a meticulous examination of disputed questions of
fact or to undertake an appreciation of evidence which properly falls within
the domain of the trial Court. The mere existence of an alternative civil
remedy, or the pendency of civil proceedings arising from the same
transaction, does not, by itself, constitute a ground for interdiction of a
criminal prosecution where the allegations prima facie disclose the
commission of an offence.
5.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the oft-cited judgment of
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 , has authoritatively delineated the parameters within which
the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:6:-
proceedings may be exercised and has laid down the following illustrative
categories:-
“107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:7:-
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:8:-
6. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court authoritatively delineated the scope and ambit of the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Court held that the power to
quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and is to be
exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in exceptional
cases, the expression " rarest of rare " being employed in a context distinct
from that governing the imposition of capital punishment.
6.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR or criminal
proceedings, the High Court is not expected to enter into disputed
questions of fact or adjudicate upon the correctness, reliability or
genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR or complaint. At such
stage, the Court cannot examine the defence available to the accused,
undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, or conduct a mini-trial.
Interference would be justified only where the case unmistakably falls
within the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, particularly those enunciated in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal
(supra).
7. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the
present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down in
Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra) or M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
so as to warrant the exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:9:-
this Court. At this stage, there is no material to prima facie indicate that
the impugned complaint is manifestly mala fide , frivolous, vexatious, or
actuated by an ulterior motive amounting to an abuse of the process of law.
On the contrary, the allegations contained therein disclose the commission
of cognizable offences, thereby necessitating a fair, impartial and complete
investigation. Judicial interdiction at this incipient stage would, therefore,
be wholly unwarranted.
8.  It is an admitted position that the petitioner was inducted as a
proprietor in the firm and that the cheques in question admittedly bear his
signatures. The contention that the cheques were issued by way of security,
by itself, cannot furnish a ground for quashing the proceedings under
Section 138 of the NI Act, as a cheque initially issued as security may
attract the statutory consequences under Section 138 if, on the date of its
presentation, it represents a legally enforceable debt or liability and the
other statutory requirements stand satisfied. Moreover it is a disputed
question of fact which is required to be decided on appreciation of
evidence.
8.1. It is equally well settled that the prosecution for an offence
under Section 406 of the IPC and proceedings under Section 138 of the NI
Act can validly coexist, as the two offences operate in distinct fields and
arise from distinct causes of action. The gravamen of an offence under
Section 406 of the IPC is the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of
property entrusted to the accused, whereas the offence under Section 138
of the NI Act is founded upon the dishonour of a cheque issued towards
discharge, wholly or partly, of a legally enforceable debt or liability,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:10:-
coupled with the failure of the drawer to make payment within the
statutorily prescribed period after receipt of the requisite notice. The mere
fact that both proceedings emanate from the same underlying transaction
does not, therefore, render either of them legally impermissible.
8.2. Likewise, the pendency of civil proceedings for recovery of
the amount does not constitute a bar to the continuance of criminal
proceedings where the ingredients of the alleged criminal offence are
otherwise prima facie disclosed. The remedies available under civil and
criminal law operate in different spheres and may, in an appropriate case,
be pursued simultaneously. The mere availability or pursuit of a civil
remedy cannot, ipso facto , efface the criminality alleged or warrant
interdiction of a prosecution which otherwise satisfies the statutory
requirements.
8.3. Viewed cumulatively, this Court finds that no exceptional
circumstance, patent illegality or manifest abuse of the process of law has
been demonstrated so as to warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS for terminating the criminal proceedings at
this nascent stage. The issues sought to be raised by the petitioner,
including the circumstances in which the cheques were allegedly issued,
their character as security instruments and the existence or extent of the
underlying liability, involve matters which are appropriately to be
adjudicated by the Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence.
Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival
claims or the ultimate liability of the petitioner, the present petition, being
devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-10673-2026 (O&M) -:11:-
8.4. It is, however, clarified that the observations made here-in-
above are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present petition and
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
prosecution or the defence set up by the petitioner. The Trial Court shall
adjudicate the complaint independently, on the basis of the evidence
brought on record and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observation contained in the present order.
9. In view of the final disposal of the principal proceedings, all
pending miscellaneous or connected applications, if any, arising therefrom
or being ancillary thereto, stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or
further order is called for in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document