[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zulfikar Ahmed vs Sahibjit Bhullar And Anr on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-13737-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13737-2019 (O&M)
Zulfikar Ahmed
...Petitioner
Versus
Sahibjit Bhullar and another
...Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 18.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. P.P., U.T., Chandigarh
For respondent No.2.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) for setting aside the
impugned order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned trial
Court in Criminal complaint No. 11061 dated 21.10.2017, titled as Sahibjit
Bhullar vs. ABC Aviation and others, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N. I. Act'), whereby proclamation proceedings
CRM-M-13737-2019 (O&M) -2-
under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned complaint had been filed by respondent
No. 1/complainant under Section 138 of N. I. Act alleging that accused
No. 1/company, of which the present petitioner was the chairman, had issued a
cheque to discharge its legally enforceable liability but the said cheque had been
dishonoured. Since the amount of cheque in question had not been paid despite
issuance of notice, therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the
aforementioned complaint.
3. Vide order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P-1), the learned trial
Court issued process against accused No.1-ABC Aviation and accused No.2-
Rajesh Ebrahim, who was signatory of the disputed cheque as well as Director
of accused No.1/company. However, it was specifically ordered that no ground
for summoning the present petitioner, who was impleaded as accused No. 3,
was made out as the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the
complainant did not disclose any role played by him for commission of subject
offence nor he was found to be the signatory of the cheque in question.
4. It is further revealed from the orders subsequently passed by the
learned trial Court, copies of which have been placed on record and which also
form part of the trial Court's record, that after passing of order dated
23.10.2017, though summons were ordered to be issued against accused Nos. 1
and 2 only but in the subsequent orders, the learned trial Court had simply
mentioned that notices were issued to the accused without clarifying that the
petitioner had not been ordered to be summoned as such. It is also apparent that
learned trial Court became oblivious of the fact that process had not at all been
ordered to be issued against the petitioner and after issuing bailable warrants,
CRM-M-13737-2019 (O&M) -3-
proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against him and then vide order dated
25.09.2018, further proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 82 of
Cr.P.C., thereby issuing proclamation against him.
5. It is also revealed that from the original trial Court's record that the
present petitioner had even caused appearance before the learned trial Court and
had been extended benefit of bail. However, thereafter, he filed this petition and
the proceedings before the learned trial Court qua him had been stayed by this
Court.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
order is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the
learned trial Court ignored the fact that the petitioner had not been summoned as
an accused by it and, therefore, no question of issuing bailable/non-bailable
warrants and then initiating proclamation proceedings had arisen against him. It
is, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the
petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Respondent No.1/complainant had initially been appearing through
counsel after issuance of notice of the petition. However, at the time addressing
arguments, none had appeared on his behalf.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Chandigarh has chosen not
to raise any argument since the matter relates to a private complaint.
9. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner, besides perusing the material placed on record as well as the trial
Court's record.
10. As already discussed, the petitioner had never been summoned as
an accused in the aforementioned complaint. It is apparent from the orders
passed by the learned trial Court that the impugned order was a result of
CRM-M-13737-2019 (O&M) -4-
lackadaisical approach adopted by the learned trial Court as while ignoring the
fact that no process had been issued against the petitioner, bailable/non-bailable
warrants had been issued against him and even proclamation proceedings had
been initiated against the petitioner. As such, apparently and evidently, the
impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) along with all the
subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom is quashed qua the
petitioner herein.
11. The registry is directed to send back the trial Court's record.
12. A copy of this order be also sent to the learned trial Court.
27.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
