THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 263 of 2009 Eilean Joshi W/o Ashok Joshi R/o Mission Compound, Saket Meerut (U.P.) …… Petitioner Versus Avdesh Kumar S/o Gagandev Prasad R/o H.No. 987/02/03 BHEL P.S. Ranipur District Haridwar ..…. Respondent Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 2. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 11/11/2008 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1521 of 2008, Avdesh Kumar Vs. Eleen Joshi, u/s 138 of N.I. Act, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Haridwar. 3. It is alleged that the complainant gave a cheque to the petitioner, which was dishonoured. Thereafter, statutory notice was sent and complaint was filed. The said complaint as well as the cognizance order has been challenged in this petition. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant. The petitioner is a teacher in school situated at Meerut. When on 25/07/2008, the petitioner was coming back after finishing her work in school, her purse was misplaced in which she was having a sum of Rs. 750/- as cash, a signed blank cheque and some other documents. She tried to locate the purse and other documents but she could not locate them. She sent communication to the S.S.P. 2 concerned as well as the Bank Manager. When the said cheque was presented before the Bank, it was dishounoured. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the case of the respondent that petitioner has given a cheuqe to the respondent which was bounced. Whereas it is the case of the petitioner that the said cheque was unsigned blank cheque was lost on 25/07/2008 when the petitioner lost her purse. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be adjudged by the court. Now, the question arises whether this defence has to be entertained at this stage by this Court. This Court is not sitting as a trial court and the parties had opportunity to adduce the evidence before the trial court and the trial court had opportunity to appreciate the evidence and come to the logical conclusion of the trial. This court cannot summarily embark upon the inquiry based upon certain documents without being asked to adduce the evidence by the parties. Thus, this court cannot summarily decide the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that u/s 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot summarily appreciate the evidence which is yet to be appreciated by the trial court. 6. In view of the above, the petition fails and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 06.04.2009 Shiv 3