IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 1187 of 2010 Sharafat Ali S/o Sharif Ahmed R/o Baditip Bhogpur, P.S. Laksar Post Bhogpur, Tehsil and District Haridwar ………..…Petitioner Versus Ajab Singh, S/o Ilam Singh R/o Village Bhogpur P.O. Laksar, Tehsil and District Haridwar ....……Respondent Shri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 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 25.11.2009,passed by the trial court (Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar) in criminal complaint case no. 781 of 2007, relating to offence punishable 2 under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 09.11.2010, passed by the revisional court, dismissing the revision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Ajab Singh has filed a criminal complaint relating to offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner. From the papers on record, it appears that prosecution evidence has already been adduced. It is also evident that at the stage of defence evidence, petitioner moved an application to further cross-examination of P.W.2 Mitrasen. The trial court has rejected the same holding that the application has been moved to delay the proceedings of the case. 4. Having gone through the impugned orders passed by the trial court, and that of the revisional court, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned orders accept that the petitioner could have been allowed to adduce defence evidence. Therefore, the petition is dismissed summarily with the 3 observation that the trial court shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner (accused) to adduce the defence evidence, if the criminal complaint case is already not disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 10.12.2010