IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 78 of 2011 Charan Pal Singh Sahani S/o Sri Jeet Singh M/s Shubh Distributors, 1104, Sector -21 Chandigarh (Punjab), Shubh Distributors 24/1 (Basement), Industrial Area Phase –2, Chandigarh (Punjab). ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Harish Birmani, Director Jaineka Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 1 –Ganga Vihar, Awadhut Mandal Ashram Jwalapur, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 568 of 2008; Jaineka Pharmaceuticals Vs. Charan Pal Sahani, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, police station Kotwali Jwalapur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, and also the judgment and order dated 20.11.2010, passed by the revisional court (6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar), in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 2010. 3) Perusal of the impugned order passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 568 of 2008, shows that a complaint was filed against the petitioner that cheque No. 939366 dated 19.05.2008, was issued by him in favour of the complainant / respondent No. 2, which on presentation before the Bankers, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The trial court after accepting evidence under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and perusal of the other papers on record, and the notice served by the complainant, took cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 203 of 2010, which was dismissed by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar, on 20th of November 2010. 4) Having gone through the papers on record, this court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders which requires interference of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As to the factual disputes it is open for the petitioner to raise his defence before the trial court. 5) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 15, 2011. H. Negi