IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 Criminal Misc. Application No. 126 of 2008 (M/S) 1. Surrender Uppal, S/O Late Shri Navneet Uppal, R/O 16-D Old Survey Road, Dehradun. 2. Uppal Towers Pvt. (through its Managing Director) Shri surrender Uppal, 16-D Old Survey Road, Dehradun. …..Applicants. Versus 1. The State of Uttarakhand. 2. A One Construction Company (through its Partner Tikam Singh Rana) 89, Chaman Vihar, Behind ITI Niranjanpur, Dehradun. ……Respondents . Sri P.R. Mullick, holding brief of Sri S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1 –State. Date February 21, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) has been filed by the applicants to quash the complaint filed by respondent no.2, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 1165 of 2006 M/s A One Construction Vs. Uppal Towers and another, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun as well as to quash the entire proceedings arising out of it. Prayer has also been made to quash the summoning order dated 11-05-2006 passed by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case. Prayer has also been made to quash the proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Code drawn against the applicants and also to direct the court concerned not to take the applicants into custody on his appearance before it. The record reveals that a complaint case bearing Case No. 1165 of 2006 was filed under Section 138 of the Act by respondent no. 2 against the applicants, alleging therein that the three post-dated cheques for Rs. 8,00,000/- each bearing Nos. 640942 dated 11-2-2006, 640943 dated 28-2-2006 and 640944 dated 25-3-2006 were issued by the applicants in favour of respondent no.2, out of which Cheque No. 640942 dated 11-2-2006 as well as Cheque No. 640944 amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- each were dishonored by the bank with an endorsement of insufficiency of funds in the account. A separate case (Criminal Case No. 2366 of 206) with regard to bouncing of latter Cheque no. 640944 has been instituted by the respondent no.2 against the applicants. The learned Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. Dehradun after considering the evidence under Section 200 of the Code led by the respondent no.2 and after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant came to the conclusion that prima facie case against the applicants is made out to proceed against him under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly passed the summoning order dated 17-6- 2006. I have heard leaner counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- is involved in the present matter for which he had prepared a Bank drafts for Rs. 8,00,000/- and has shown the same to the Court, which he is ready to pay to the complainant before the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicants further stated at the Bar that he came to know that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code have been initiated by the court concerned against the applicants. In the circumstances of the case, the applicants may move recall application before the Court concerned for recalling the order whereby the attachment proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Code have been passed by the learned Magistrate and he may present the bank draft before the court concerned. The court concerned may pass appropriate order on the application, so moved by the applicants, in accordance with law without any further delay in the matter. With the said observations, the application under Section 482 of the Code is disposed of finally. RCP (B.S. Verma, J.)