IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 459 of 2008 D.D. Ahuja, S/o Late Sri H.N. Ahuja, R/o Ahuja Building, 555 A, Krishna Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana. .……… Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Atul Joshi R/o Mangoli Bhawan, Purani Abkari, Ranikhet, District Almora. ……… Respondent Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for respondent no. 1. JUDGMENT J.C.S. Rawat, J. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the summoning order dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet District Almora in Criminal Case No. 734/2007, Atul Joshi Vs. D.D. Ahuja under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. It is revealed from the record that the applicant issued a cheque no. 790772 dated 01.9.2007 of Canara Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi which was produced on the bank by respondent no. 2/complainant but the same was returned by the bank on 28.9.2007 with an endorsement that the payment has been stopped. Though statutory notice was sent to the applicant, the applicant did not pay any head to the notice. Hence, the complainant/respondent no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora under Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act in which the learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the accused by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the said cheque was given in lieu of a sale consideration with regard to a plot, which was to be executed by respondent no. 2/the complainant; the land which was to be sold to him, did not belong to the person from whom the land was to be purchased; and no case is made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is settled position of law that the Court would interfere or quash the summoning orders and the proceedings of the criminal case only in a rare of rarest cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicant. It is also settled position of law that this Court while hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not sitting as a trial court & this Court cannot take into consideration the plausible defence of the accused during the course of this hearing. The contentions, which the learned counsel for the applicant has raised before me, can be raised during his defence and it requires the evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interference in this matter and the petition is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 21.07.2008 V.K.