IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.617 OF 2010 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Shravan Kumar …………Applicant Versus Ranveer Sharma …………Respondent Dated: October 20, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the respondent. 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 summoning order dated 19.9.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.102 of 2009, Ranveer Sharma v. Shravan Kumar, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act). Facts, in brief, are that respondent Ranveer Sharma filed a complaint before C.J.M., Haridwar against the applicant with the allegations that on 20.3.2008 the applicant and the respondent entered into an unregistered agreement for sale of a plot in ` 24,62,000/-, out of which ` 7,00,000/- as advance was given to the applicant by the respondent. It is further stated that thereafter the aforesaid deal could not materialize and both the parties entered in cancellation of agreement and as such the applicant gave a cheque dated 21.7.2008 amounting to ` 7,00,000/- to the respondent as against the money given by the respondent to the applicant. It is alleged that when the said cheque was presented by the respondent in the bank the same was dishonoured and returned to him by the bank on 23.7.2008 with the endorsement “Funds 2 Insufficient”. Thereafter, the respondent, through his counsel, served a registered notice dated 7.8.2008 to the applicant but the applicant neither refunded the money nor he gave reply to the aforesaid notice. With the same averments, the complainant/respondent filed the present complaint in the court. In support of the complaint, the complainant filed cheque in dispute, bank memo, copy of notice and receipt of registry and also got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, vide order dated 19.9.2008, learned Second Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, took the cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of the act and also summoned the applicant. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other papers available in file, prima facie a case under section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the applicant. 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 of complainant recorded u/s 200 are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, 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. 3 For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.10.2010 RG