Archive · 27 Aug 2026
Punjab and Haryana HC Keeps Woman in Cheque-Bounce Trial
A business dispute led to an agreement to pay Rs 85 lakh.
A cheque meant to make this payment was rejected by the bank because there was not enough money.
Tripti Srivastava asked the High Court to stop the criminal case against her.
She said her husband and his company had promised to pay the money.
The other side said she had authorized her husband to act for her business.
The judge said these facts need to be properly examined in a trial.
The court also said Srivastava could not rely on the settlement while avoiding its possible responsibilities.
The case will now continue before a magistrate in Karnal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash cheque-bounce proceedings against Tripti Srivastava and her proprietorship firm.
The case concerns an Rs 85 lakh settlement cheque issued after a business dispute with Yogesh Singla.
Srivastava argued that her husband and his company had accepted responsibility for paying the settlement amount.
Singla opposed the petition, citing a Special Power of Attorney authorizing the husband to act for Srivastava.
Justice Alok Jain ruled that the disputed liability should be examined at trial before the Karnal magistrate.
- Who
- Tripti Srivastava and her proprietorship firm are accused; Yogesh Singla filed the complaint, and Justice Alok Jain heard the petition.
- What
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash a Section 138 cheque-bounce case involving an Rs 85 lakh settlement cheque.
- When
- The settlement was signed in August 2023; a Karnal magistrate summoned the accused in June 2025, and the High Court dismissed the petition last week.
- Where
- The High Court proceedings took place in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while the trial will proceed before a magistrate in Karnal.
- Why
- The court held that Srivastava’s role and the existence of a legally enforceable debt required examination at trial, despite her husband’s promise to pay.
Srivastava’s arguments
Singla’s arguments and the court’s view
Responsibility for payment
Srivastava’s arguments
Srivastava argued that her husband and his company had expressly accepted responsibility for paying the Rs 85 lakh settlement amount, so she should not face trial.
Singla’s arguments and the court’s view
Singla argued that Srivastava remained connected to the liability and that her Special Power of Attorney authorized her husband to act on her behalf.
Effect of the husband’s promise
Srivastava’s arguments
Her lawyers relied on Singla’s complaint and another order in which he had indicated that the husband, who signed the cheque, should be summoned.
Singla’s arguments and the court’s view
The court held that the husband’s undertaking did not automatically shield Srivastava, especially because the power of attorney had not been revoked before the cheque was issued.
Quashing the proceedings
Srivastava’s arguments
Srivastava sought to have the Section 138 proceedings dismissed before trial.
Singla’s arguments and the court’s view
The court said quashing the case would prejudge disputed issues, including whether a legally enforceable debt arose from Srivastava’s firm’s business dealings.
- Settlement amount
- Rs 85 lakh
- Settlement date
- August 2023
- Legal provision
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Complainant
- Yogesh Singla
- Petitioner
- Tripti Srivastava and her proprietorship firm
- High Court judge
- Justice Alok Jain
- Next step
- Trial before a magistrate in Karnal