IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2010 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Reeta Sharma …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. 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 summoning order dated 15.10.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in case no.3072 of 2009 u/s 138 of N.I. Act, Mahesh Chandra Tyagi v. Smt. Reeta Sharma. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Mahesh Chandra Tyagi (respondent no.2) filed a complaint against the petitioner before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee with the allegations that the complainant was having close family relations with the petitioner and her husband and due to these relations, the petitioner asked for money for purchasing land and the respondent no.2 gave Rs.4,20,000/- to the petitioner with the assurance that she will refund the amount within two months. It is further alleged that after expiry of the stipulated two months, when the complainant asked for his money, the petitioner tried to 2 linger on the payment on one pretext or other. After asking for money time and again, on 26.6.2009 the petitioner gave Rs.20,000/- as cash and for the rest of the amount she issued a cheque bearing no.0471443 amounting Rs.4,00,000/- dated 15.7.2009 of Punjab National Bank, Branch Ramnagar, Roorkee to the complainant. But the petitioner requested the complainant to present the said cheque in the bank after 25.8.2009. Relying upon the petitioner, the complainant presented the said cheque in the bank on 29.8.2009 but the same was dishonoured with the endorsement “account closed”. Thereafter the complainant told the said fact to the petitioner but the petitioner did not give any positive response to him rather she misbehaved with him. Thereafter the complainant sent a registered notice through his counsel to the petitioner on 3.9.2009 requesting to refund the amount within 15 days. The notice was served on the petitioner but even then the petitioner did not pay the amount to the complainant. Thereafter, this complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, which was registered as Complaint Case No.3072 of 2009 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant in support of his case got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. he filed original cheque 0471443 dated 15.7.2009 amounting Rs.4,00,000/-, deposit slip of the cheque dated 29.8.2009, memo of the bank, two copies of notice dated 3.9.2009, original receipts of registry dated 3.9.2009, registered envelope along with A.D. and others. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide his order dated 15.10.2009, took the cognizance against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 15.10.2009, the petitioner has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Mahesh Chandra 3 Tyagi recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint and the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence , I am of the view that the applicant has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed summarily. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.07.2010 RG