IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc.Application (C482) No. 839 of 2011 Salabh Goyal, S/o Sri Ghanshyam Das Goyal, R/o Mohalla Jwalapur, P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ….…..Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand Through Home Secretary Dehradun. 2- Anjul Mehta, S/o Sri Ganga Saran Mehta, R/o M-29, Harilok Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ……Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard on restored petition. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings of criminal case no. 919 of 2010, Anjul Mehta Vs. Salabh Goyal, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no liability on the petitioner in respect of 2 which the cheque in question was issued. In this connection, reference was made to the case of M/s Modi Cements Ltd. Vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1057 and M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. State of Kerela and another (2006) 6 Supreme Court Case, Page 39 and it is pleaded that impugned proceedings of criminal case are liable to be quashed. 4) On the other hand on behalf of the respondent no.2 Anjul Mehta (complainant), it is contended that the petitioner knowingly committed cheating by issuing a cheque to him, without there being sufficient funds in the account. It is also contended that due notice was given to the petitioner and still he failed to pay the amount to the complainant. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the fact that the complainant who stood guarantor and mortgaged his property for the cash credit limit availed by the petitioner and his wife. The complainant has become victim of cheating at the hands of the petitioner. 5) In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned trial of the case for two reasons. Firstly, factual disputes cannot be examined by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is meant for issuing directions/orders for the ends of justice, and in the present case, if the impugned proceedings are stayed, it would not 3 serve the ends of justice, rather it will do other way round. 6) Therefore, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily without expressing any opinion, as to final merits of the case pending before the trial court. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.09.2011 JM