1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Sri Kashi Ram S/o Sri Mani Ram R/o Village Lachiwala Tehsil Parwadoon District Dehradun … Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 567 of 2005 Gopal Chand Rawal S/o Sri Roshan Lal Rawal R/o Missarwala Police Station Doiwala District Dehradun … Applicant Vs Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, present for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Deepak Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 19.01.2005 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 234 of 2003, Kashi Ram Vs Gopal Chand Rawal, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 – Kashi Ram filed a complaint against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant took the loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) from him. The applicant had given three cheques for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs each to the complainant/opposite party No. 2. When he same were presented before the bank for payment, he was informed that the said cheques have been dishonoured on the ground of ‘payment stopped by drawer’. The complainant issued notice to the applicant and when he did not received response, then, he filed the complaint Case No. 234 of 2003 2 before the Special Magistrate C.B.I., Dehradun, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant. The complainant also filed the affidavit before the trial court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on which the trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 19.01.2005. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this petition for quashing the impugned summoning order passed by the trial court. 4. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1, Sri Deepak Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant has not proved the notice before the trial court. There is no case is made out against the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against him are liable to be set aside. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers available before me, this court is of the view that in the present case there are disputed questions of fact involve which can not be examined by this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The points raised in the petition are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the 3 disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the stay order dated 02.09.2005 stands vacated. 09.07.2010 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)