IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No. 269 of 2002 Naresh Kumar M/s Ram Charan Lal Yaad Ram, Kila Bazar, Haldwani, District Nainital …. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Girish Chandra Proprietor Manohar Lal & Sons, Shop of Harmangal, Near Painth Parao Post Office Harmangal, District Nainital. 2- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Haldwani, Nainital. 3- District and Sessions Judge Nainital ------- Respondents. Sri Piyus Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Pabhakar Joshi learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State. Dated: 09.1.2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the order dated 20-2-2002, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in Criminal Case No. 745 of 2002, U/S 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the order dated 14-5-2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Crl. Revision No. 17/2002, dismissing the same summarily without admitting it. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the petitioner runs his business of Kirana Merchant at Haldwani. The respondent No.1 borrowed some goods from his shop for Rs. 49,9000/- vide Bill No. 650 dated 2.4.1999 and promised to pay the same within two days. After repeated demands the respondent No. 1 gave cheque bearing No. 082540 dated 14.4.99 drawn at Almora Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Haldwani. The said cheque was presented before the Bank but it was returned on 10-5-1999 with the remark of insufficient amount. The petitioner sent legal notice on 17-5-99 to the respondent No.1 intimating him that the cheque could not be encashed due to insufficient amount in his account and asked him to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The notice was served upon the respondent No. 1 on 21-5-99 but he did not make payment of the said amount to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint on 2.6.1999 in this regard before the A.C.J.M. Haldwani against the respondent No. 1. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 21.7.1999 after the enquiry and issued summons to the accused/respondent No.1. The accused/respondent No. 1 filed objection against the above summoning order. The learned Magistrate after considering the objection and hearing the parties, allowed the same and quashed the summoning order dated 21-7-1999, thereby discharging the accused/respondent No.1 from the offence U/S 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant /petitioner preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Nainital. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision summarily without admitting the same vide impugned order dated 14.5.2002. 3. The complainant/ petitioner has approached this court by way of this petition for quashing the orders passed by the courts below. The petitioner has alleged that the learned Magistrate has misinterpreted the documents on record and has committed mistake in allowing the objection against the summoning order. 4- The respondent No. 2 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition and alleged that the complainant has sent notice dated 17-5-1999 which was received by him on 21.5.1999, hence as per the provision of Section 138( C) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the applicant could file his complaint after expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. The complaint was filed on 2.6.1999 which is before the expriy of the statutory period of 15 days and therefore the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the summonding order on a premature complaint. 5- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. After having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that the notice was received by him on 21.5.1999. The A.D. of the notice sent to him was produced before the learned Magistrate and in the said document the date of receipt was noted 21.5.1999. Therefore, the complaint could be filed after 15 days of the date of receipt of the notice, i.e. 5.6.1999, but the complaint was filed on 2.6.1999, which is a premature complaint as per the provision of Section 138 (C) of the Negotiable Instrument Act and cognizance could not be taken on such complaint by a court in accordance with the provision of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is also noteworthy that in the present case the while the learned Magistrate took cognizance statement U/S 200 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and the complaint was not returned to the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the above facts of the case did not admit the revision against the order of the Magistrate and dismissed the same summarily. 7- In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do to find any illegality and manifest error in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below. No abuse of process of Court has been committed in the instant case. The petition devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB