IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 817 of 2010 Nem Chand Gupta ` …….Applicant. Versus Kanti Prashad Agarwal ……Respondent. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the applicant as well as the respondent. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the summoning order dated 24.4.2010 and the subsequent proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1146/2010 Kanti Prasad Vs. Nem Chand Gupta pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) stating that three cheques bearing No. 061059 dated 24.2.2010, 061050 dated 30.4.2010 and 061060 dated 3.3.2010 of Rs. 95,000/-, 50,000/- and 50,000/- respectively have been dishonoured and consequently after taking recourse under Section 138 of the Act, summoning order was issued against the respondent/opposite party. The applicant alleges that as a counter blast, the respondent has also filed a complaint against the present applicant under Sections 417/420 IPC before the court below and the summons have been issued against the present applicant. In the complaint which has been lodged against the present applicant, it has been alleged that the cheques which were dishonoured were not the cheques which were given as a return of any debt or liability to the applicant as the entire debt had already been fulfilled, and therefore, the said cheques were not liable to be given to the bank for encashment and the very fact that these cheques were given to the bank for encashment shows that it has been done with an intent to cheat the complainant/respondent. 2 In view of this Court the entire proceeding initiated by the respondent appears to be a counter blast and is purely an abuse of the process of Court. The court below was not liable to take cognizance of the matter considering the fact of the case where the entire case against the applicant is a counter blast to his initiation of procedure under Section 138 of the Act., and therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, summoning order dated 24.4.2010 and the subsequent proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1146/2010 Kanti Prasad Vs. Nem Chand Gupta pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee are hereby set aside. An interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. becomes necessary in view of the paradigm laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. The respondent is, however, at liberty to take his defence under Section 138 of the Act before the court below. With these observations, the present C-482 application is allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.8.2010 Avneet