Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kaushal vs Rimpy Saluja on 8 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
233
CRM-M-10266
10266-2019(O&M)
Date of decision: 08.01.2026
Rakesh Kaushal ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Rimpy Saluja ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav and Mr. Ankit Kaushal, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder and Ms. Indira, Advocates,
for the respondent.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed led under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of complaint No. 08 dated 17.05.2016 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and summoning order dated 09.10.2018 issued by the Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, on the ground that continuation of the same is an abuse of process of law.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had a dispute with one Neeraj Saluja, son of H.L. Saluja (husband of the respondent- complainant Rimpy Saluja herein). It is contended that Complaint No.361 dated 06.11.2013 titled 'Rakesh Kaushal @ R.K. Kaushal Vs. Neeraj Saluja 'had been instituted before the Sub-Divisional Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura for commission of offence under Section 138, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Rajpura making specific allegation to the effect that Neeraj Saluja had borrowed a sum of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) Rs.5,20,000/- from the petitioner herein and to discharge his legal liability, Neeraj Saluja had issued cheque dated 05.10.2013 bearing No.268474 of Rs.3,00,000/-; cheque bearing No.268475 of Rs.12,000/-; cheque bearing No.268476 of Rs.8,000/- and cheque bearing No.268477 of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh-Ambala Road, Dera Bassi. It is contended that upon presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, whereupon, the aforesaid complaint had been filed after serving a legal notice.
3. The parties thereafter led their evidence in the proceedings before the trial Court. The entire prosecution evidence was put to Neeraj Saluja-husband of the respondent herein and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
4. A specific plea of defence was taken by Neeraj Saluja to the effect that he had never availed any loan from the petitioner. Instead, it was pleaded that he, along with his wife Rimpy Saluja (the respondent herein), had approached the petitioner for grant of a cash credit limit of Rs.10,00,000/- and that in connection therewith, two stamp papers of Rs.500/- each and 4 blank cheques were obtained by the petitioner. The said stamp papers were signed by Neeraj Saluja as well as Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) and they were handed over to the petitioner. It was further asserted by Neeraj Saluja (husband of the respondent herein) that the cheques in question pertained to the bank account of Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) and that the same were subsequently misused for institution of the proceedings. Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) had also stepped into the witness box in support of the aforesaid defence and supported the plea taken by her husband during the course of the trial. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M)
5. It is further contended that, notwithstanding the specific plea of defence raised in the earlier proceedings by Neeraj Saluja (husband of the respondent herein), he was convicted for the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide judgment dated 01.09.2015and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years. The appeal preferred by Neeraj Saluja (husband of the respondent herein) against the said conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 04.06.2018 passed in CRA No.587 of 28.09.2015 titled as 'Neeraj Saluja Vs. Rakesh Kaushal alias RK Kaushal'. He further contends that Criminal Revision No.2097 of 2018 titled as 'Neeraj Saluja Vs. Rakesh Kaushal @ R.K. Kaushal'was filed before this Court, wherein the offence ultimately came to be compounded upon payment of the outstanding dues.
6. He further submits that Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) had also filed a Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of Showroom No. 604/25, admeasuring 37 square yards, situated at Dera Bassi, and that the petitioner herein had no right to realise any alleged loan amount from her and that the plea regarding four blank cheques having been handed over was again specifically raised by the respondent- complainant. It is contended that the plaint in the said civil suit was returned whereafter the respondent-complainant did not pursue the matter any further before the competent forum.
7. He further submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid circumstances, Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) had filed the complaint No.119 of 2015, under challenge, bearing CRM/1441/2015 for seeking direction for registration of FIR for commission of offences under Sections SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.The relevant extract of the allegations levelled in the said complaint reads thus:-
"3. That thereafter having no response from the branch, the complainant along with her husband approached to accused no 1 namely Rakesh Kaushal, the then senior manager PNB branch manager Rajpura Town branch who was called for the loan file from dera bassi branch and sanctioned the loan of Rs 25 Lakh as per the eligibility of the complainant and her husband Neeraj Saluja. The draft of Rs 25 Lakh was issued in favour of owner of the property namely Shakuntla Devi out of which Rs 2,50,000/- was deposited back by the complainant in account no 466600011313 as per the instructions of the bank. The complainant had issued 11 blank signed cheque bearing no 268461 to 268471 and two stamp papers as per demand of the bank for security purposes.
4. Thereafter in the month of September 2012, the complainant alongwith her husband who is the co-applicant in the said case approached to accused no 01 Rakesh Kaushal for sanction of the Cash credit limit against the same property and in this regard the complainant and her husband (co-applicant) furnished two stamp papers of Rs 500/- each out of which one is in the name of the complainant and one is in the name Neeraj Saluja and also issued four blank signed cheque from the account no 466600011313.
5. That the complainant and her husband were submitted stamp papers for the purpose of Cash credit limit which were SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) purchased from Suresh Kumar Stamp Vendor, Tehsil Complex Dera Bassi on 25.09.2012 of Rs 500/- each and the same were entered at serial no 10484 and 10485 alongwith four blank signed cheque bearing number 268474 to 268477 from saving account no 466600011313 to the accused nо. 01 at PNB Branch Rajpuraon 25.09.2012 but on 26.09.2012, one Mr Sharma Field Officer / Junior Manager of PNB Branch Rajpura refused to recommend the said CC Limit but the accused no. 1 did not return the above said two stamp paper and blank signed cheque by assuring that the same will be utilized as and when the complainant again applied for the CC Limit.
xxxxxxxxx
8. That after some time, the accused no 01 Rakesh Kaushal started demanding illegal gratification from the husband of the complainant due to the sanction of above said loans but when the complainant and her husband showed their inability to give the above said illegal gratification to the accused no 01, then the accused no 01 started threatening the complainant and her husband to face the dire consequences and ultimately to achieve his ill motive, the accused no 01 misutilized the above said four cheque which were submitted to accused no 01 at PNB Branch Rajpura on 25.09.2012 for the purpose of sanctionthe CC Limit.
9. That the things was not end here, the accused no 01 to achieve his target, filed the complaint u/s 138 NI Act on 01.11.2013 at courts Rajpura and during the said trial of 138 of NI Act, the another illegal thing came to the knowledge of the complainant SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) and her husband when my husband received a legal notice dated 17.04.2014 which was got issued by accused no 02 through his counsel Sh Mukesh Gandhi Advocate, which shows that my husband was entered into agreement to sell dated 25.09.2012 of showroom in question to said accused no 02 for Rs 33 Lakh and the said notice was duly replied as per facts stated above by the complainant through his counsel vide reply dated 03.05.2015.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
16. That as per the circumstances explained above it becomes crystal clear that when the illegal demand of gratification of accused no 01 was not fulfilled, then all the illegal proceeding was done by the accused persons as such they are intentionally and in connivance with each other, dishonestly used the four blank cheque and one stamp paper dated 25.09.2012 to make the loss to the complainant and her husband Neeraj Saluja which is clearly shows that the accused persons have a conspiracyto prepare the above said false and fabricated documents as such all the accused intentionally and deliberately committed the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with section 204 IPC."
8. Referring to the above, counsel for the petitioner contends that the present complaint is only a continuation of a failed defene by reiteration of the same plea of defence, earlier raised by Neeraj Saluja (husband of the respondent herein), in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which plea had been expressly rejected by the Court. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) It is contended that Neeraj Saluja was ultimately convicted and his conviction was affirmed upto the Appellate Court. At the stage of criminal revision, the matter came to be compounded only upon payment of the amount which constituted the subject matter of dispute between the parties.
9. He contends that notwithstanding the aforesaid judicial determination, the Trial Court has summoned the petitioner for facing trial for the aforesaid offences alleged in the present complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
10. It is contended that the respondent-complainant had herself appeared as a witness in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against her husband and, having failed to establish the defence set up therein, has now sought to harass and humiliate the petitioner by instituting the present criminal complaint on the same set of allegations. He vehemently argues that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in the aforesaid case would thus be a gross abuse of the process of law.
11. It is also contended that the respondent-complainant has failed to disclose the material facts pertaining to the earlier proceedings and their outcome. Since the documents relied upon by the petitioner in his defence, are part of undisputed judicial record, hence, their admissibility and relevance should be examined at this stage. A consideration thereof would not give rise to any disputed questions of fact. Once it stands demonstrated, on the basis of unimpeachable documents on record, that the institution of criminal proceedings is borne out of malicious intent and solely to harass and humiliate a litigant, a Court of Law is required to step-up and nip the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) illegality in the bud instead of compelling an innocent person to the rigors of criminal trial.
12. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and contends that the summoning order impugned herein is a revisable order, against which the petitioner ought to avail the statutory remedy of revision. He further contends that even though the proceedings had been instituted against as many as 04 persons, however, the other accused persons, who have been summoned by the trial Court, have not been impleaded as parties in the present petition. Prayer is thus made that the present proceedings be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
13. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition.
14. Insofar as the first objection of the respondent-complainant as regards the petitioner having the remedy of revision against the order of summoning is concerned, the said argument lacks merit. It is evident from the petition that it does not merely assail the order of summoning but also challenges the complaint as well, with a prayer for quashing of both the complaint and the summoning order. A revision can be preferred only against an order passed by a criminal court and a prayer for quashing of the complaint is not maintainable in a revisional jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the mere availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar by itself to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction can always be exercised by this Court to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) secure the ends of justice, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy.
15. The same thus leads to the next objection raised by the respondent with regard to non-joinder of all persons originally named in the complaint. The same also does not merit acceptance. It is evident from the record that upon consideration of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, only the petitioner herein, along with one Atul Kaushal, son of Inderjeet Kaushal, was ordered to be summoned for facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, though named in the complaint, were not summoned by the trial Court. The petitioner having chosen to approach this Court, his right to seek redressal of his grievance cannot be defeated merely because the other persons, who have also been summoned, have not approached this Court. Each accused has an independent right to challenge the proceedings initiated against him and the fate of one cannot be made contingent upon the action or inaction of another. The allegations against each accused are hence required to be examined independently on their own merit. In the present petition, no relief is even claimed against the other summoned accused and no adjudication is sought qua their rights. The respondent-complainant, Rimpy Saluja, is the only necessary party for adjudication of the dispute challenged by the petitioner. Consequently, the objection regarding non-joinder of parties is also devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.
16. This now leads to the question as to whether the initiation of proceedings by way of complaint No. 08 dated 17.05.2016 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC as well as order of summoning dated SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) 09.10.2018 issued by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dera Bassi, amount to an abuse of the process of law?
17. It is evident from the perusal of reply filed by the respondent- complainant that the specific plea of the petitioner with respect to the institution of the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the judgment of conviction followed by the subsequent dismissal of the appeal as well as the eventual compounding of the offence at the revisional stage are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that a civil suit for seeking a declaration had also been instituted by the Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) and that the said civil suit had been returned and has not been presented again by the Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) before any competent forum. Further, it also remains undisputed that Rimpy Saluja had appeared as a witness before the trial Court in the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and had raised the very same plea, which is now the allegation forming the basis of the disputed complaint, and that despite consideration of her testimony, the defence was not accepted by the Court and her husband stood convicted. The operative part of the judgment passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura reads thus:-
"6. In his defence, accused got examined his wife Rimpy Saluja as DW1. who deposed by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex- DW1/A stated therein that in May, 2012 she made an agreement with Shakuntla Devi for purchase of showroom no.604/25 and paid Rs.5 lac as earnest money to her and date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 29.06.2012. She further stated that she applied for a commercial loan for Rs.25 lac from Punjab SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) National Bank, Dera Bassi for the purpose of purchasing said shown room in first week of May, 2012 and loan case was forwarded to PNB Circle office Patiala. She further stated that having no response from Derabassi branch, she along with her husband Neeraj Saluja met the complainant, who was earlier known to them being branch manager of PNB and complainant told that loan of Rs.25 lac applied for was within his competence. She further stated that Neeraj Saluja was also co- applicant and complainant called the loan file from Derabassi and sanctioned a loan of Rs.22,50,000/- and after depositing margin amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in SB account, cheque for Rs.25 lac was issued by the bank in the name of Shakuntla Devi. She further stated that for taking loan 11 blank signed cheques bearing no.268461 to 268471 were issued by her and two signed blank stamp papers for Rs.500/- each were handed over to the bank for security purposes. She further stated that in the month of September 2012, she as well as her husband approached the complainant and demanded two stamp papers of Rs.500/- each and four blank cheques bearing no.268474 to 268477 which were handed over to complainant on 25.09.2012 itself in PNB, Rajpura. She further stated that on 26.9.2012 when Neeraj Saluja approached Mr. Sharma, Field Officer/Jr. Manager PNB, Rajpura town for recommending the CC Limit, Mr. Sharma refused to do so by saying that firstly four/five installments of loan should pay and then apply for CC Limit but did not return the two stamp papers and four blank cheques by SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) stating that same will be utilize as and when applied for C.C.Limit. She further stated that after continuously paying the loan installments, they approached to complainant for sanction of CC limit of Rs.10 lac but complainant advised to apply the same at Derabassi and Rs.4 lac was only sanctioned in CC Limit on 15.03.2013. She further stated that complainant being Sr. Manager started demanding illegal gratification from Neeraj Saluja saying rewards for the help rendered by him in loan case as well as CC Limit but Neeraj Saluja showed his inability to pay the same and then complainant threatened Neeraj Saluja with dire consequences and to achieve his ill motive complainant dishonestly and fraudulently filled four cheques bearing no.268474 to 268477 on 5.10.2013. She further stated that she sent a complaint by email on 17.02.2014 against complainant and copies thereof were sent to the Vigilance department of PNB, New Delhi and proved copy of email dated 17.02.2014 Ex-DWI/1, copies of complaint along with original postal receipts Ex-DW1, Ex-DW1/2A and DW1/3, Ex-DW1/3 respectively, acknowledgement was received which is Ex-Ann-DW1/4. She further stated that complainant got infuriated and sold the stamp paper no.10484 which was obtained by complainant for grant of CC Limit and which was in the name of Neeraj Saluja to one Atul Kaushal and got prepared false agreement dated 25.09.2012 on the stamp paper whereby the showroom in question was said to have been sold by Neeraj Saluja for Rs.33 lac. She further stated that a legal SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) notice dated 17.4.2014 was also got issued by Atul Kaushal to Neeraj Saluja through Sh. Mukesh Gandhi Advocate and a detailed reply to said notice was sent on 3.5.2014 and complaint was sent to SHO, Dera Bassi. She further stated that a complaint against complainant Rakesh Kaushal was also sent to the Banking Ombudsman on 24.6.2014 and she proved copy of complaint and postal receipt as Ex-DW1/5 and Ex-DW1/6 respectively. She further stated that a reminder was sent to the banking Ombudsman on 16.7.2014 through courier and proved copy of reminder and receipt of courier company as Ex-DW1/7 and Ex-DW1/8 respectively. She also stated that she sought information through RTI from Nodal Officer, PNB, New Delhi vide application dated 22.9.2014 and its reply was received and she proved copy of application and its reply as Ex-DW1/9 and Ex-DW1/10. She further stated that when no action was taken by the banking authorities against complainant for dishonestly and fraudulently misusing the four cheques and stamp paper no.10484, she sent a detailed complaint to Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh on 28.11.2014 and copy of same proved as Ex-DW1/11. She further stated that said complaint was forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Officer, PNB, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.12.2014 by SP (CBI), Chandigarh and copy of same was forwarded to her and she proved the said copy of letter as Ex-DW1/12. She further stated that a reminder dated 27.01.2015 was sent to Chief Vigilance Officer, PNB, New Delhi, who sent reply thereof on 3.2.2015 and copies of same SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) proved as Ex-DW1/13 and Ex-DW1/14 respectively. She further stated that a complaint dated 29.3.2015 was sent to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, PNB, New Delhi against complainant Rakesh Kaushal and proved copy of complaint and postal receipt as Ex-DW1/15 and Ex-DW1/15-A respectively. She further stated that complainant has filed a false complaint against Neeraj Saluja by mis-utilized the four cheques in question and blank stamp paper no. 10484 and blank signed stamp paper no. 10485 is in custody of complainant Rakesh Kaushal.
After that accused Neeraj Saluja himself stepped into witness box as DW-2 and reiterated the same as pleaded by him in his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. which need not to be repeated here for the sake of brevity. He also proved original legal notice dated 17.4.2014 Ex-DW2/1, copy of reply to the said notice dated 3.5.2015 as Ex-DW2/2, copy of reply dated 15.7.2014 sent to SHO through Sh. Sudesh Kumar Goyal Ex- DW2/3, copy of complaint dated 17.7.2014 moved before SHO, Derabassi Ex-DW2/4 and its English translation Ex-DW2/5.
After that, accused got examined Jatin Kumar, Single Window Operator, PNB, Dera Bassi as DW-3 who proved record regarding account opening of Rimpy Saluja and Neeraj Saluja dated 12.8.2009 and proved copy of same as Ex-DW3/A and copies of documents attached with said papers as Ex- DW3/B. He further stated that on pass book bearing A/C no.4666000100011313 of Rimpy Saluja and Neeraj Saluja, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) there is entry till 24.1.2014 and proved original pass book as Ex-DW3/C. He further proved record regarding sanction of loan in the name of Rimpy Saluja dated 15.6.2012 and CC limit of Rs.4 lac dated 15.3.2013 in respect of M/s Nari Shingar which is under the proprietorship of Rimpy Saluja and proved copies of same as Ex-DW3/D. Namarta Kapoor, HRC, DC Office, SAS Nagar Mohali proved record regarding stamp vendor register of Suresh Kumar Jain for period of 20.9.2012 to 19.12.2012, containing entry at Sr. No.10301 dated 20.9.2012 to 14902 dated 19.12.2012 commencing from 10435 to 10489 and proved its attested copy as Ex-DW4, Ex-DW4/1 and Ex-DW4/2 and as per entries made in register as serial no.10484 a stamp paper of Rs.500/- has been sold to Neeraj Saluja and Sr. No.10485 a stamp paper of Rs.500/- has been sold to Rimpi Saluja.
DW-5 Suresh Kumar Jain, stamp vendor proved record of stamp vendor register brought by HRC for the period of 20.9.2012 to 19.12.2012 and identified his writing therein and further stated that as per entries dated 25.9.2012 at Serial no.10484 stamp paper of Rs.500/- was sold to Neeraj Saluja and Sr. No.10485 of Rs.500/- was sold to Rimpi Saluja and against these entries signatures of Neeraj Saluja were obtained by him.
DW-6 Rajnish Kumar Shelly, Advocate proved his signatures at point-A on notice dated 17.4.2014 Ex-DW2/1, which was issued to Neeraj Saluja and Rimpi Saluja as per SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) instruction of his client Atul Kaushal, who shown him the agreement to sell dated 25.9.2012 entered between the above said parties but he has not retained the copy of said agreement to sell mentioned in the notice.
DW-7 Atul Kaushal stated that he knew Neeraj Saluja and his wife Rimpy Saluja for the last about 10/12 years, who executed an agreement to sell dated 25.9.2012 in respect of sale of shop no.604/25, main Bazar Dera Bassi for Rs.33 lac in his favour and copy of same proved as Mark-AA."
18. It is thus evident that all the allegations now levelled by Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) in the present complaint had already been raised by her in the earlier proceedings before the Illaqa Magistrate. It is a matter of record that Atul Kaushal, one of the accused summoned in the present complaint, had appeared as a defence witness on behalf of the respondent- complainant and examined as DW-7. The specific plea raised by her husband had not been accepted despite the testimony of Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein) and he failed to establish the plea or to dislodge the case of the petitioner. Institution of the present complaint, after failure to prove the same in the earlier proceedings instituted by the petitioner against her husband, is nothing more than an attempt to reagitate issues that are already concluded. Re-agitating the matters that have attained finality amounts to an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed in the matter of 'Anukul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another 'reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 2060 has held that when a mischief is evident and is well reflected from the unimpeachable documents on record, the Court of Law is required to nip the mischief in bud instead of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) compelling an innocent person to face the agony of a protracted criminal trial only to prove his innocence. The relevant part thereof is extracted as under:
11. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to recapitulate the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well established that though the High Court possesses wide and plenary inherent jurisdiction, such power is not unbridled or unlimited, but circumscribed by self-imposed restraints evolved through judicial pronouncements.
11.1. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 SCC (Cri) 426], at paragraph 102, laid down illustrative categories where quashing of proceedings is justified. These are:
"(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 FIR 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.SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18
233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) (4) Where the allegations in the FIR 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 FIR 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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."
The categories in Bhajan Lal are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations - (a) preventing abuse of process of law, and (b) ensuring that criminal proceedings are not stifled at the threshold on disputed questions of fact.
11.2. Equally, this Court has consistently cautioned that the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a "mini-trial" or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR/complaint and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. [See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madal Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330], HMT Watches v. Abida [(2015) 11 SCC 776], and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2022) 20 SCC 661]].
11.3. In Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar [(2019) 6 SCC 107], it was reiterated that appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within the exclusive domain of the trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly, in CBI v. Aryan Singh [(2023) 18 SCC 399], it was emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the merits of the prosecution's case and holding that charges were not proved, which is a matter strictly for trial.
11.4. Nevertheless, an exception has been recognized where the defence relies upon unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence of sterling quality - such as documents of undisputed authenticity - which ex facie demonstrate that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and oppressive. This principle was recognized in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. [(2008) 13 SCC 678], and followed in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) subsequent decisions.
11.5. Thus, the cumulative principles that emerge are: while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.
(emphasis supplied)"
19. The Supreme Court further held in the matter of 'Harshender Kumar D. Vs. Reabatilata Koley & Anr.' reported as (2011) 3 SCC (351), that High Court may consider documents in defence in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent injustice or abuse of power or to promote justice. High Court can quash complaint if evidence is beyond suspicion or doubt or which are in the nature of public documents and are uncontroverted.
20. The nature of the documents relied upon by the petitioner are not in dispute and are neither questioned by the respondent-complainant. They being unimpeachable, have to be read for assessing merits of the claim of the petitioner.
21. The position in law needs no reiteration that when a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite a person due to private and personal grudge, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) the same deserves to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law. The object behind the same is that a private or personal grudge would not use process of law as an arena for settlement of score. A Court does not become a turf for mischief. It rises to action when prosecution is used as persecution.
22. The facts also establish that the allegations levelled in the complaint have already undergone judicial scrutiny and the version of the respondent-complainant has already been tested and disbelieved. The finding recorded against the respondent-complainant have attained finality.
23. The petitioner cannot be compelled to suffer agony of trial despite having successfully prosecuted for his rights.
24. A version would not be tested against a person again and again. The respondent-complainant, having raised this defence unsuccessfully, should not be permitted to re-agitate the same allegations in a wasteful deployment of judicial time. A full procedural circle in such cases need not be taken recourse to as it underscores the significance of justice.
25. In view of the facts as aforestated and the judgment noticed herein above, I am of the opinion that the initiation of the present proceedings at the behest of Rimpy Saluja (respondent herein), (the wife of Neeraj Saluja), is a clear abuse of the process of law and is aimed at harassing the petitioner, who had successfully prosecuted Neeraj Saluja, the husband of the respondent herein, in proceedings arising out of dishonour of cheque. The material and documents relied upon by the petitioner form part of unimpeachable judicial records. Their admissibility, relevance and credibility are not in dispute. In such circumstances, the probative value and legal significance of the said material cannot be ignored or brushed aside. The continuation of the present criminal proceedings, in the backdrop of the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22 233 CRM-M-10266-2019(O&M) admitted and concluded litigation between the parties, would therefore amount to permitting a misuse of the criminal process for oblique and vindictive purposes, which this Court cannot countenance.
26. Consequently, the present petition is allowed qua the petitioner herein. The complaint No. 08 dated 17.05.2016 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC as well as the order of summoning dated 09.10.2018 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dera Bassi are quashed qua the petitioner.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
08.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
Sumit Gusain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.01.27 20:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document