IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 792 of 2005 Maharaj Singh Ashwal S/o Shri Chandan Singh Ashwal R/o House No. 399 Teebri Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. ………..…Applicant. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Mukesh Narayan,S/o Shri Shanti Narayan R/o 24/1, Circular Road, Dehradun,District Dehradun. 3. Smt. Manali, W/o Shri Mukesh Narayan C/o Shri R.P. Joshi, 221 Model Colony Behind Bangla Bangali Mandir Dehrdun, District Dehradun. 4. Shri R.D. Sharma, S/o Shri Nand Ram R/o Divya Vihar Colony Police Station Dharampur District Dehradun Presently posted in Senior High Secondary School Khurbura, P.S. Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. ..……Opposite parties. Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 03.12.2004, passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal complaint case No. 1049 of 2004, whereby said court has dismissed the criminal complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 06.08.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/IVth Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in criminal revision No. 470 of 2004, whereby said court has dismissed the revision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has alleged in the complaint that he had given loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the respondents No. 2 to 4. For repayment of said loan accused gave a cheque of rupees 65, 000/-in March 2004. When said cheque was presented before the Bank it got dishonoured. Thereafter, again when the accused promised that if the cheque be presented second time it would not be 3 dishonoured, the petitioner/complainant presented the cheque in August 2004, but again the cheque was dishonoured. With these pleadings, complainant alleged that the respondents No. 2 to 4 have committed cheating, criminal misappropriation and conspiracy and the criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondents No. 2 to 4. It is also alleged that when the complainant told the accused about the subsequent dishonour of cheque they misbehaved with him. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the offence in substance is of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but admittedly no notice was served on the respondents No. 2 to 4. The petitioner/complainant filed criminal revision before Sessions Judge, which was disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge/IVth Fast Track Court, Haridwar, whereby said court has affirmed the order passed by Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court and the revisional court have committed error of law by treating the complaint only in respect of 4 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is pleaded that the criminal complaint was for summoning the accused in respect of offences punishable under section 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. On perusal of the order passed by the revisional court it reveals that even the other offences mentioned in the criminal complaint, punishable under section 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., are also not made out, as it is not disclosed that on which date and in what manner the amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- was paid to the respondents No. 2 to 4. There is no document, e.g. cheque, draft, receipt showing such payment, on the basis of which it can be gathered that the money was paid by the petitioner/complainant to the respondents No. 2 to 4. Since neither entrustment of the property is proved nor wrongful loss to the complainant was shown, as such, in the opinion of this Court the courts below have committed no error of law in dismissing the complaint of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to the close relation with the respondents No. 2 to 4 no receipt was obtained of payment of Rs. 1,65,000/-. Even if said fact is taken to be 5 true, it is not disclosed to which of the respondents such payment was made. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the courts below. Therefore the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Dt:03.05.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 6