IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 90/2005 Vijay Bhushan Pandey …Petitioner. Versus Special Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh and another …Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2. Dated: April 20, 2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 7-12-2004, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 1154 of 2004, Amir Chand Vs. Liyakat Ali and another, U/Ss 420, 406 I.P.C. He further prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Amir Chand filed a criminal complaint before Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh against the petitioner and one Liyakat Khan with the allegations that Liyakat Ali is the agent of Alaknanda Leasing and Finance Limited, whose Director is petitioner Vijay Bhusan, Pandey. The Alaknanda Leasing and Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘finance company’) use to collect the money in the monthly instalments and return the same with interest @ 18% to 23% per annum. The complainant/respondent No.2, on the persuasion of the accused persons, on various dates invested money with the ‘finance company’ and after a period of one year a sum of Rs. 64,800/- became due. In lieu of that amount the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the complainant/respondent no.2. The complainant submitted the aforesaid cheque in the concerning bank which was dishonoured. Thereafter the complainant sent notice to the accused persons through registered post on 13.10.2004 but the accused did not pay the money to him. The further allegation of the complainant is that he has deposited a total sum of Rs. 82,410/- with the finance company and he is entitled to get the same with interest from the accused persons. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is that the accused have deceived him and played fraud with him. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of Manoj Kumar Gupta U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and after finding a prima facie case against the petitioner Vijay Bhushan Pandey and Liyakat Khan, summoned them to face trial U/Ss 420 and 406 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 7.12.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed this petition before this court for setting aside the summoning order as well as for quashing the proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case. I have heard Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that a false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the complainant with an intention of squeeze money from the petitioner keeping him under pressure by dragging him in criminal case. The Special Act has been enacted to take care of bouncing of cheques and present complaint pertains to sections 420, 406 I.P.C. which in abuse of process of court. Learned A.G.A. has refuted the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that it is the specific case of the complainant/ respondent no.2 that on various dates on the persuasion of accused persons, he invested money with their finance company and after one year a sum of Rs. 64,800/- became due to him and the cheque issued by the petitioner in respect of this amount was dishonoured by the bank. It is further case of complainant that a total sum of Rs. 82,410/- was invested by the complainant and on demand the accused persons are not ready to pay the same. Therefore, the intention of the accused persons from the very inception of the case was to deceive the complainant and they played fraud with him, therefore, sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. are attracted in the instant case. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the complaint, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Perusal of complaint and the statement of the complainant reveals that the complainant has invested money with the finance company, whose Director was the petitioner and agent was accused Liyakat Khan. The complainant invested money in the above finance company on various dates and after one year a sum of Rs. 64,800/- became due to the complainant. The petitioner issued cheque in respect of aforesaid amount and the same was dishonoured by the bank. It is further allegation of the complainant that he invested a sum of Rs. 82,410/- with the finance company and when he demanded the said amount the accused persons refused to return the same. I find that the learned Magistrate has not committed any manifest error while passing the order dated 7.12.2004, thereby summoning the accused persons to face trial U/Ss 420 and 406 I.P.C. The contents of the complaint makes out the ingredients of offence punishable U/S 420 and 406 I.P.C. and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case falls within the purview of Special Act enacted to deal with bouncing of cheques has no force. Prima facie it is proved that the accused persons had dishonest intention from the very inception of the case and they played fraud with the complainant. It is also noteworthy that in proceedings U/S 482 Cr.P.C. this court is not supposed to act as a trial judge. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry at this stage about the reliability of the case, especially under the circumstances when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. For the reasons recorded above, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 23.02.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB