IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 48 of 2006 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Vikas Sharma. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. None appears for the respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the criminal complaint case no. 846 of 2005 titled as “Praveen Kumar Vs. Vikas Sharma” wherein order of cognizance dated 22.10.2003 was passed asking petitioner to stand trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). It is pertinent to mention that this Court has given hearing to learned counsel for the applicant while none has responded on behalf of the respondent no. 3 even in the revised call. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the said complaint was instituted on 01.10.2003 under the Act, for recovery of the amount mentioned in three cheques of Account No. CA 106 drawn from Punjab National Bank, Jwalapur Branch, Haridwar. The details of these cheques are mentioned as under: S. No. Cheque No. Issued on date Amount in Rs. 01. 536040 26.02.2003 6000/- 02. 536041 08.03.2003 6000/- 03. 536050 10.03.2003 12000/- 2 3. All the above three cheques were returned dishonoured by the Bank on 12.08.2003 for the reason that the signatures of the Account holder are different. Praveen Kumar issued a notice under Section 138 (b) of the Act on dated 30.08.2003 and it is alleged that the said notice was never served upon petitioner. However, a complaint was filed on 01.10.2003. Learned Magistrate, having gone through the statement of the complainant as well as papers filed therewith, took cognizance in the matter on 22.10.2003 and asked the petitioner to face trial. 4. The crucial argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the said Account No. CA 106 was in the name of Mehboob Ali and petitioner was not the Account holder of the same. He has filed attested true copy, verifying the above fact, which is Annexure no. 7 to the petition. Besides, paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, reads thus: “That the applicant categorically states that the said account No. CA 106 of Punjab National Bank does not belong to him. This account belongs to one Sri Mehboob Ali, who is one of the accused in the FIR lodged by the applicant’s father. The Manager, Punjab National Bank has also certified that account No. CA 106 of Punjab National Bank belongs to one Sri Mehboob Ali. An exact copy of the certificate issued by the Bank is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 7 to this petition.” 5. In the counter affidavit filed by Praveen Kumar on dated 03.07.2006, the facts deposed in paragraphs 16 and 17 in the petitioner’s affidavit have not been denied. 3 6. So in view of the above facts and particulars, this petition has force and deserves to be allowed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 22.10.2003 and complaint case no. 846 of 2005 titled as “Praveen Kumar Vs. Vikas Sharma” under Section 138 of the Act pending in the court of 1st ACJ (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.12.2011 SKS