IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.729 of 2009 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Vinod Kumar Saini … Petitioner Versus Jagpal Singh … Respondent Dated: July 21, 2010 Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner None for the respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. By means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the summoning order dated 31.8.2009 as well as the further proceedings of Complaint Case No.2797 of 2009, Jagpal Vs. Vinod, pending in the court of J.M., Roorkee u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act). In brief the facts of the case are that a complaint was moved by the respondent before the trial court with the averments that the petitioner issued a Cheque No.00943 dated 10.7.2009 of District Cooperative Bank, Main Branch, Roorkee for Rs.18.00 lacs. When the said cheque was presented in the Bank by the respondent on 14.7.2009 for payment, that came out to be dishonored on the same day with the remarks “insufficient funds”. A notice was also given to the petitioner by the respondent on 31.7.2009, which was also sufficiently served upon the petitioner on 3.8.2009, however even thereafter the said amount was not repaid to the respondent by the petitioner. Hence the present complaint was filed. The complainant/respondent in support of his case filed his own affidavit while in the 2 documentary evidence, he brought on record the original cheque, receipt for depositing the cheque in the bank, memorandum slip, receipt of registry and copy of notice etc. before the trial court in support of his case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below proceeded to summon the petitioner u/s 138 of the Act vide order dated 31.8.2009. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below erred in summoning the petitioner. I do not find any force in this argument. In the present case, the cheque was issued on 10.7.2009 and it was deposited in the bank for payment on 14.7.2009 and on the same day that was dishonored having “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 31.7.2009, which was also duly served upon the petitioner on 3.8.2009. However, even then neither any reply thereof was given by the petitioner, nor the payment was made to the respondent and ultimately on 25.8.2009, the complaint was filed by the complainant in the court. As such, the requirement of Section 138 has been made without their being any delay. Therefore, the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act prima facie made out against the petitioner at this stage. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the 3 complainant, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, the application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 21, 2010 Rajeev Dang