IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Urgency Application No.1930/2011 & Delay Condonation Application No.376/2011 & Restoration Application No.249/2011 In Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.82 of 2011 Raj Kishore Jain S/o Banarasi Das Jain R/o Ballupur Road, Dehradun … Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Pradeep Jain S/o Sri Sumeer Chandra Jain R/o 5/2 Subhash Road, Dehradun …Respondents Sri Alok Dalakoti, Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.K. Joshi, Advocate, present for the petitioner Sri P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder, present for the State. Dated: May 20, 2011 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Delay Condonation Application No.376/2011 for condonation of delay in moving the restoration application. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Heard on restoration application MCRC No.249/2011. In view of principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Limited and others Vs. Union of India (2007 AIR SCW 1971), the restoration 2 application is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall argue on the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., on merits. Heard on merits on the petition moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.5895/2010, Pradeep Jain vs. Raj Kishore Jain, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun, relating to offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without service of notice on the petitioner, the criminal complaint is not maintainable relating to offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Perusal of the copy of the criminal complaint shows that notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 20.4.2007, after the cheque no.381986 was dishonoured on presentation before Canara Bank, Branch Clock Tower, Dehradun. If the notice is not served on the petitioner, he is at liberty to raise said plea before the trial court where the evidence can be lead whether the service on the petitioner was sufficient or not. This Court, in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot go into the factual dispute whether the notice was actually effected on the petitioner or not, before the criminal complaint was filed. As far as the averments in the criminal complaint are concerned, the same are there. 3 In the above circumstances, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, pending before the trial court. (Urgency Application No.1930/2011 stands disposed of). (P.C. Pant,J.) 20.5.2011 Rajni