CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 17

th

December, 2025

Pronounced on: 10

th

March, 2026

+ CRL.M.C. 5205/2018, CRL.M.A. Nos. 34010/2018, 10446/2024,

11687/2024 and 37715/2025

DIMPY NANGIA

W/o Shri Narender Nangia

R/o B-124, Sarvodaya Enclave

New Delhi.

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Shailendra Singh, Mr.Ishaan

Jain and Mr. Surya Pratap Singh,

Advocates.

versus

1. THE STATE

Government of NCT of Delhi

Delhi.

2. RAVINDER PAL SINGH

S/o Inderjeet Singh

R/o D-60, Fateh Nagar,

Jail Road,

New Delhi.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 2 of 16

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on behalf of the

Petitioner, Dimpy Nangia for setting aside CC No.11274/2016 under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to

as „NI Act‟) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Brief facts are that Respondent No.2, Ravinder Pal Singh had filed

CC No.11274/2016 under Section 138 NI Act against the Petitioner Dimpy

Nangia in respect of dishonour of cheque No.538630 of Rs.50,00,000/-

dated 21.08.2008 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank. On the averments that

Accused / Petitioner, Dimpy Nangia had entered into an Agreement to Sell

in respect of builder property bearing No.N-25 and N-26, Village Rajpur

Khurd, Hargobind Enclave, Near Chhattarpur, New Delhi.

3. On 30.05.2008, the Petitioner had received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-

via Pay Order from the Complainant as earnest money. Receipt of the same

was duly prepared and signed by the Petitioner. Rs.5,00,000/- had also been

received by the Petitioner in cash on 30.10.2008 against the sale

consideration, which was duly acknowledged by her. However, she did not

come forward to execute the documents in favour of the Complainant. Legal

Notice dated 26.07.2010 was issued by the Complainant for execution of

sale documents, but there was no response from the Petitioner.

Subsequently, corrigendum Notice was issued in 06.05.2010 for correcting

the name of the Complainant, which had been inadvertently mentioned

incorrect.

4. At last, Petitioner entered into a Mutual Settlement / Memorandum of

Understanding (“MOU”) dated 21.08.2010 with the Complainant, wherein

she agreed to settle the matter and issued a cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- dated

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 3 of 16

21.08.2008 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank to the Complainant, which was

double the amount of earnest money paid by the Complainant. Petitioner

assured that the said cheque may be presented after a few days, after which

it would be honoured. However, on presentation, the cheque got

dishonoured and returned unpaid on 26.10.2010 with remarks ‘Refer to

Drawer’ with Bank Memo dated 27.10.2010. Complaint under Section 138

NI Act was thus filed by the Complainant against the Petitioner / Accused.

5. After being summoned, the Petitioner / Accused filed a Complaint

dated 08.03.2016 for discharge on the ground that Complainant was a

member of gang of cheats and thugs, whose kingpin was one Harjinder Pal

Singh (Complainant’s brother). It was claimed that Petitioner’s husband had

approached Harjinder Pal Singh in the year 2007 for a loan of

Rs.70,00,000/- at the instance of one Pawan Saini, who had given an

advertisement in the newspaper about easy loans being available without

any mortgage etc.

6. The Petitioner in the present Petition has explained that around the

year 2007 when her husband was facing financial crisis in his business, he

unfortunately fell in the trap of members of the crime syndicate whose king

pin happens to be the brother of the Respondent No. 2 herein, who

introduced themselves as private money lenders. The husband of the

Petitioner was lent a sum of Rs.70 lakhs in July, 2007 and after deducting

heavy interest upfront, he was given Rs.63,70,000/- by Harjinder Pal Singh,

elder brother of the Complainant, who was subsequently identified as a

Bank Guarantor. The husband of the Petitioner in 2008, took a further short

term loan of Rs.7,40,000/- which was given by Harjinder Pal Singh vide Pay

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 4 of 16

Order dated 30.05.2008 drawn on Punjab & Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.

Harjinder Pal Singh had made him sign cheque.

7. In the year 2009, it was discovered that Harjinder Pal Singh had

committed breach of trust, forgery and cheating etc. against the Petitioner’s

husband in respect of his valuable immovable properties. Harjinder Pal

Singh was not only an anti-social element but also a habitual criminal who

has been convicted and has been behind bars for his various criminal acts.

8. It was found that Harjinder Pal Singh in criminal conspiracy with the

Complainant and one Mr. Mehta, Advocate (Notary Public) and one Jagjit

Singh (brother-in-law / sala of Harjinder Pal Singh) in connivance duped,

robbed, cheated and swindled innocent persons, who were in need of money

and exploited their situation by taking from them and their family members

documents like blank signed cheques; blank signed stamp papers of various

denomination; registered power of attorneys with respect to the immovable

properties and some blank signed papers duly at the bottom by way of

security against lending them various amounts.

9. Petitioner, her husband and her family members have been similarly

cheated and their properties have been usurped by the Complainant along

with his brother Harjinder Pal Singh and other accomplices, by making them

sign and affix thumb impressions on blank cheques, stamp papers, power of

attorneys and blank papers. Those blank cheques and stamp papers have

been misused and converted by the Complainant in his favour for unjust

enrichment and gains.

10. In 2012, it was found that Respondent along with his brother-in-law,

Jagjit Singh and H.S. Mehta, had not only converted the blank signed papers

and stamp papers into the Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2008, Special

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 5 of 16

Power of Attorney, Receipts, etc., in respect of property No. 64, IMT,

Manesar, Sector-6, Gurgaon but also fraudulently fabricated and forged the

Agreement to Sell reflecting sale consideration as Rs.30 lakhs along with

receipt w.r.t. property No. N-25 & N-26 admeasuring 300 sq. yds. at

Hargobind Enclave, near Chhattarpur New Delhi.

11. A MOU allegedly pertaining to sale transaction of the aforesaid plot

was also prepared. Pursuant to the illegal acts and conspiracy, they filled a

figure of Rs.50 lakhs on the blank signed cheque, which was given on

30.08.2005 by the Petitioner to Harjinder Pal Singh, but mentioned the date

as 21.08.2010. This cheque was presented for encashment after which the

Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed.

12. FIR No.0236/2013 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC has

been registered by Delhi Police at P.S. EOW. The impugned cheque in the

present Complaint was also part of interim Chargesheet, which has been

filed by EOW and is pending trial in the Court of learned ACMM, Saket.

13. The FSL, Delhi has given a Report dated 02.12.2015 wherein it is

opined regarding the forged Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2008 that writing

signatures were executed beneath the type writing. It is clearly proved that it

was blank papers which had been dishonestly converted into Agreement to

Sell.

14. The forged Agreement to Sell was further supported and improved

upon by another forged document, namely, an MOU/Mutual Settlement

dated 21.08.2010. This forged MOU claims that the Petitioner had agreed to

refund Rs.50 lakhs vide cheque dated 21.08.2010 drawn on Punjab & Sindh

Bank. The MOU is typed on a plain piece of paper whereas the MOU has

rendered the Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2008 a nullity and a new

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 6 of 16

liability of Rs.50 lakhs has been created by Respondent No. 2 and Harjinder

Pal Singh on the Petitioner. It clearly shows that because Respondent No. 2

and Harjinder Pal Singh ran out of blank stamped papers signed and given

by the Petitioner at the time of taking loan on 30.05.2008 they, resorted to

using simple signed paper to create an MOU/Mutual Settlement Agreement

dated 21.08.2010, is a forged document.

15. Petitioner / Accused claimed that her husband has already paid more

than Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Harjinder Pal Singh by way of repayment of loan

with interest. However, Harjinder Pal Singh has illegally and fraudulently by

fabricating the documents has sold the property worth more than Rs.5 crore

belonging to the husband and family members of the Petitioner.

Complainant is one of the beneficiary of this illegal sale of the property, for

which money has been pocketed and shared amongst four accused persons

namely Harjinder Pal Singh, Ravinder Pal Singh, H.S. Mehta and Jagjit

Singh, as mentioned in FIR No.0236/2013.

16. Complainant’s claim that alleged amount of Rs.50 lakh had been

given to her by way of impugned cheque is incorrect, as the cheque has been

found to be forged and fabricated by CFSL and Fingerprint Bureau. The

alleged agreement showing repayment/ compromise has also been found to

be forged and fabricated. The Accused claimed that she does not owe even a

single penny to the Complainant; rather the bank account of Complainant’s

brother has been frozen by EOW, Delhi in FIR No.0236/2013. Entire

documents including impugned cheque and Agreement etc., including the

documents, on the Complainant has relied in the Complaint under Section

138 NI Act, have been impounded and seized by EOW, Delhi Police.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 7 of 16

17. Present Complaint was just a counter-blast in an exercise to summon,

harass and drag the Petitioner to face the trial in a cheque bounce case.

Hence, Petitioner has sought discharge and dismissal of the Complaint under

Section 138 NI Act.

18. It is further submitted that CRL.M.C. 1855/2015 had been had been

filed by the Petitioner in this Court for quashing of CC No.2551/2010 under

Section 138 NI Act, but the same was dismissed with the observations that

in the arguments, the point of framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

were concluded and personal appearance of the Petitioner may not be

insisted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated

05.05.2015.

19. Discharge Application, filed by the Petitioner, was dismissed by

learned MM vide Order dated 13.10.2016, which was challenged by the

Petitioner in CRL. REV. P.56364/2016, but the same also got dismissed.

Another, CRL.M.C. 2913/2017 had been filed by the Petitioner in this

Court, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.07.2018.

20. Petitioner / Accused again filed Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. It is submitted that earlier

CRL.M.C.2913/2017 had been withdrawn by the Petitioner on 24.07.2018,

but after that there has been new development, wherein Police has filed

Status Report on 23.08.2018 in FIR No.0831/2014 under Sections 420/120B

IPC, registered at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi and has recommended that

proceedings under Section 182 IPC be initiated against the Complainant

Ravinder Pal Singh on the ground that he in conspiracy with other, had

forged documents regarding property of the Petitioner / Accused and on the

basis of these documents had got the case registered against Mr. Narender

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 8 of 16

Nangia (Petitioner’s husband) by misrepresenting and concealing true facts

to the Police as well as the Court.

21. The impugned cheque, which is subject matter of NI Act, is part of

FIR and Police is seized of the forged document. It has been found by the

Police after thorough investigations that the Petitioner has no liability and

once the matter is being dealt in FIR No.0831/2014, there is no question of

proceeding further in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Hence,

Petition has been filed for quashing of the Complaint under Section 138 NI

Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

22. Reference has been made to Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of

Maharashtra, 2004(13) SCC 324, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held

that only remedy for the accused to seek discharge is to file a Petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in FIR No.0831/2014 under

Sections 420/120B IPC, registered at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi, a Cancellation

Report has already been submitted. Complaint under Section 138 NI Act, on

identical facts, cannot be allowed to be continued, as a weapon of

harassment.

23. Reliance has been placed on Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Judicial Magistrate,

AIR 1998 SC 128.

24. The Petitioner has sought the quashing of this Criminal

Complaint under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the narration of

facts in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act and the documents on the

face of it, neither inspire confidence with respect to their veracity nor is it

believable in the normal course of human conduct of business. If the

Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2005 claims that the Petitioner has given

possession and original documents to the Respondent to bring alleged buyer,

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 9 of 16

but on realising that he would not able to prove his possession after

30.05.2008 and also would not be able to prove custody of the original title

document of the subject property. He as an afterthought gave a Legal Notice

dated 26.07.2010 and its corrigendum demanding original documents of the

property and the possession thereof.

25. In the forged Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2008, it is mentioned that

Rs.20 lakhs had been given and a balance of Rs.10 lakhs was to be given by

30.11.2008. The forged MOU dated 21.08.2010 mentioned that Rs.5 lakhs

has been given on 30.10.2008. Once again, it is a situation where a normal

and rationally human being would find it difficult to comprehend as to why

would an individual pay more money in spite of the fact that the other party

is not executing the Sale Deed. It further emerges from the Complaint that

pre-summoning evidence of the Respondent that he had allegedly paid a sum

of Rs.17,60,000/- in cash out of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Petitioner herein and

the cheque of Rs.50 lakhs had been allegedly issued on account of her not

executing the Sale Deed in favour of the Respondent. It is asserted that

because of non-execution of the Sale Deed, it was alleged that she was liable

to return double the earnest money as per Paragraph 11 of the forged

Agreement to Sell.

26. It is alleged that the Respondent has given no proof of the amount of

Rs.17,60,000/- though being paid in cash was available with him in his book

of accounts, bank accounts, etc. In the absence of any such supporting proof

with respect to the cash allegedly paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner

herein. The only inference of the judicial notice can be taken is that such

amounts are unaccounted transaction and thus illegal.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 10 of 16

27. It is further claimed that the learned Trial Court grossly erred in

dismissing the Application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of

the Petitioner. This Order of dismissal dated 13.10.2016 was assailed before

the learned ASJ in Criminal Revision Petition No. 56364/2016.

28. The grounds on which the Order dated 12.05.2017 has been

challenged is that the Complainant has illegally, fraudulently, improbably

misused the blank cheque which has been thoroughly investigated by EOW

and it has been found that a fraud has been played by the Respondent No. 2.

The Status Report dated 23.08.2018 in FIR No. 0831/2014 under Section

421/120B IPC recommended proceedings to be initiated against the

Complainant under 182 CPC.

29. The cheque which is the subject matter of the Complaint under

Section 138 NI Act had been seized along with the other documents and it

has been found that the Petitioner has no liability. Once this issue has

already been dealt in FIR No. 0831/2014, there is no question of further

proceeding in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Valid credit has to

be given to the Cancellation Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the

Police in regard to the alleged transaction Complaint by Respondent No.

2/Complainant herein.

30. In the case of M/s IKF Technologies Limited (supra), it has been

observed that in an appropriate case if on the face of the documents which

are being on suspicion or doubt which are placed by Accused then the

accusations against him cannot stand. It would be travesty of justice if

Accused is relegated to trial and is asked to prove his defence before the

learned Trial Court.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 11 of 16

31. It is stated that the findings of the learned Trial Court that the

Petitioner has taken a loan of Rs.63,70,000/- from the brother of the

Complainant against which he had issued the cheque in question is factually

incorrect. The jurisdictional error has been committed in not appreciating the

Cancellation Report filed by the Police in FIR No.0831/2014.

32. It has not been appreciated that the story put forward by Respondent

No. 2 to claim cheque of Rs.50 lakhs is essentially a civil dispute because

the entitlement to double the earnest money is a claim which needs to be

adjudicated as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath,

(2015) 4 SCC 136, that where a sum is named in a contract as a liquidated

amount payable by way of damages, the party complaining of breach can

receive reasonable compensation as liquidated amount only if it is a genuine

pre-estimate of damages fixed by both the parties and found to be such by

the Court.

33. The essential ingredient of Section 138 NI Act, i.e. existing debt

payable is conspicuously absent in the entire transaction. The Petitioner has

been subjected to miscarriage of justice by virtue of the impugned Order

dated 12.05.2017. Hence, a prayer is made that the Complaint under Section

138 NI Act be quashed.

34. Written Submissions have been filed by the Respondent No. 2,

who has stated that two earlier quashing Petitions in this Complaint have

been dismissed in Crl. M.C. No. 1855/2015 vide Order dated 08.09.2017 and

Crl. M.C. 2913/2017 vide Order dated 24.07.2018. The Revision Petition

filed by the Petitioner for discharge under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been

dismissed in Criminal Revision No. 56364/2016. The Discharge Application

under Section 258 Cr.P.C. has also been dismissed vide Order dated

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 12 of 16

13.10.2016. Despite this, there is a second Application for discharge which

is pending before the learned Trial Court for arguments.

35. The Revisional Court in its Order dated 12.05.2017 has already

dealt with the issues of FSL Report, Status Report, Cancellation Report,

issuance of cheque in question and signatures of the Petitioner. The

Complainant is a victim and is being projected as a culprit, even though he is

not involved in any of the FIRs except frivolous FIR No. 236/2013 lodged

by the husband of the Petitioner and that too, has been lodged by forum

shopping and concealing two Police Closure Reports. The Petitioner’s

husband’s Court cases for registration of FIR, are pending in Punjab and

Haryana High Court and JMIC Court.

36. It is stated that the present Criminal Case under Section 138 NI Act,

is arising out of MOU for property transaction between the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 2, for Rs.30 lakhs. The documents have been duly executed,

which were witnessed by husband of the Petitioner, Narendra Nagia and

were duly notarized. Initially a payment of Rs.25 lakhs was received by the

Petitioner from Respondent No. 2 including a Pay Order of Rs.7.40 lakhs,

which was encashed in her account, but she sold the property to some other

person only for Rs.7 lakhs, and the copy of Agreement for Rs.7 lakhs, was

filed on record.

37. It is claimed that there is no adverse Report for MOU received from

FSL and Finger Print Bureau, despite these documents having been sent for

analysis. The Respondent No. 2 also got the Report from Truth Lab, Delhi

which proved the MOU as genuine. A Closure Report has been filed in FIR

No. 0831/2014 lodged by the Complainant against the Petitioner and her

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 13 of 16

husband. The Respondent No. 2 has already filed a Protest Petition against

the Closure Report, before the Court of ACMM which pending adjudication.

38. The Police has not recommended initiation of proceedings in the

Complaint Case of the Respondent No. 2, under Section 138 NI Act. The

Petitioner has subsequently moved an Application under Section 340

Cr.P.C. against Respondent No. 2 in his FIR No. 831/2014 in which the

Closure Report has already been filed, Therefore, the Application under

Section 340 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

39. The concerned IO has filed its Report wherein the proceedings

under Section 182 IPC, have been proposed. The IO is acting in connivance

with Petitioner and her husband. The Closure Report has not been

recommended as per law and the concerned Court has not accepted the

same. These are only the tactics in order to evade the rightful claim of

Respondent No. 2.

40. The Petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court despite

bailable warrants, warnings, cost, Attachment Order to recover cost and

even the Notice has not been framed against her. During the past years, she

has already availed the remedy through two quashing Petitions, without

success.

41. All the defenses taken by the Petitioner in her Application under

Section 258 Cr.P.C., are required to be proved by leading evidence. The

issuance of cheque in question and the signatures thereon, are not in dispute.

The Revisionist has failed to respond to Legal Notice dated 01.11.2010

under Section 138 NI Act. Therefore, there is sufficient material available

for framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 14 of 16

42. It is further claimed that the FSL Report dated 02.12.2015 relied

upon by the Petitioner are not the final word on the authenticity of these

documents. They are not incontrovertible or unimpeachable or admitted

documents of the Complainant and are required to be proved during the trial.

43. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Petition is not

maintainable as per law and is an abuse of process of law and delay tactics.

Therefore, the present Petition be dismissed with costs.

Submissions heard and record perused.

44. The Petitioner perused and sought the quashing of the Complaint

under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the cheque in question along

with various blank papers and signed stamp papers, had been taken by the

husband of the Complainant, on the false pretext of getting the loan and the

same had been subsequently manipulated into the cheque in question, which

is not legal.

45. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the

Complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any

offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of

process of Court. The Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or

evaluate disputed facts or defense evidence, at this stage.

46. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque and the signatures of

the Petitioner thereon, are not disputed. The principal defence of the

Petitioner is that the cheque was a blank signed instrument which was

misused by the Complainant and that the underlying documents, are forged.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 15 of 16

47. The Petitioner has made a reference to FIR No.0831/2014 wherein

various documents which had been used for creating the Agreement to Sell,

were seized by the Police and had been found to be forged and fabricated

and the Closure Report has already been filed, against which the Protest

Petition is pending. The claim of the Petitioner is that the cheque in question

was also amongst those documents, which have been found to be forged and

fabricated.

48. However, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner had filed Crl.

M.C. No. 1855/2015 and Crl. M.C. 2913/2017 for quashing of the

Complaint and for discharge, but the same have already dismissed in vide

Order dated 08.09.2017 and 24.07.2018, respectively. The discharge

Application filed by the Petitioner, has also met with dismissal.

49. The Complainant herein has explained that the impugned cheque is

not the subject matter of the documents, in respect of which two FIRs have

been registered. The MOU dated 21.08.2010 has been executed and the

cheque in question has been given in terms of the MOU, which has got

nothing to do with the documents, which were the subject matter of the two

FIRs.

50. The multiple rounds of litigation undertaken by the Petitioner to

somehow get the discharge or quashing of the Complaint, has proved to be

futile in the present case.

51. It has been rightly contended that the signatures on the cheque, have

not been questioned. The rest of the documents having been manipulated or

that the MOU was also forged and fabricated, are all defences of the

Petitioner, which she is liable to prove during the trial.

CRL.M.C.5205/2018 Page 16 of 16

52. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the

present Petition, which is dismissed.

53. Pending Application(s), if any, are accordingly disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

MARCH 10, 2026/N/R/VA