IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 88/2005 Sanjay Kumar .. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal & another .. Respondents. Mr. K.S. Verma, learened counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for State. None appeared for respondent No.2. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) Dated: 15-04-2010 By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding of criminal complaint case No. 290/2004, Sandeep Saini Vs. Sanjay Kumar, U/S 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending before Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Sandeep saini filed a complaint case against the applicant U/S 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, before Judicial Magistrate Roorkee with the allegation that he borrowed Rs. 94,200/- to the applicant. When the applicant did not return the money, the respondent demanded his money. At this the applicant issued a cheque No. 176740 dated 21.2.2004, pertaining to City Bank Delhi. When the chequed was submitted before the Bank, the Bank returned it with the remark that the account has already been closed. Thereafter the complainant sent notice to the accused/applicant but inspite of that the accused/applicant did not pay his money and threatened him to implicate in a case. The learned Magistrate took the statement of 2 complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. The accused/applicant did not appear before the learned Magistrate, hence the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28-9-2004, issued non-bailable warrant against the accused/applicant. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has filed this petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the non bailable warrant as well as quashing the proceeding of the criminal complaint case pending against him. Heard Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 did not borrow any money to the applicant and a false complaint has been filed against the applicant. Perusal of record reveals that the respondent No.2/complainant has filed a complaint against the accused/applicant with a specific allegation that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 94,200/- to the applicant on 1.10.2003 to run a factory, and on demand the applicant issued a cheque which was bounced by the concerning bank as the account of the applicant has already been closed. Photocopy of cheque has been filed in the petition as Annexure-3. It appears that the accused/applicant was not appearing before the trial court and in that situation the trial court vide impugned order dated 28-9-2004 issued non-bailable warrant against him. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. It is also to be mentioned here that in a proceeding U/S 482 Cr.P.C. this court is not supposed to act as a trial judge. I am not supposed 3 to embark upon an enquiry at this stage, specially under the circumstances when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. No abuse of process of court has been made in this case. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 22-02-2005, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB