IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 189 of 2005 Amitesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State and others …Respondents Dated:16-04-2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the summoning order dated 7.12.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Haldwani, Nainital, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 822 of 2004. The petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the order dated 29.1.2002 passed by A.C.J.M., Haldwani, Nainital, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 822 of 2004, as well as the proceedings in the aforesaid case. 2- Brief facts of the case are that complainant- respondent no. 4 filed a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Haldwani, Nainital on 13.10.1998 alleging therein that the petitioner gave cheque bearing no. 0693570 to the complainant which was returned by the Bank on the ground that payment was stopped by the drawer and cheque was returned by the Bank. The petitioner was served the notice on 3.10.1998 and the amount of money as mentioned in the notice was not made good to the complainant and the cheque was 2 dishonoured from the Bank. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioner summoned him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 7.12.1998. Against the said summoning order, the petitioner filed his objection to the complaint case on 24.2.1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani, Nainital, who vide order dated 29.1.2002 rejected the objections filed by the petitioner to the complaint case. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3- Heard Sri Devendra Pant, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondents no. 1 to 3, Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and perused the record. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders firstly on the ground that notice was not in accordance with law as the period for making the payment as mentioned in the notice is ten days. Having considered the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that merely by mentioning that money is to be paid within ten days will not render the notice illegal. 5- Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complaint itself has been filed before expiry of period of 30 days, which makes the 3 complaint illegal. Again, I do not find any force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The period of limitation of filing the complaint is 30 days. In case, if the complaint could have been filed after the expiry of period of 30 days, then certainly petitioner had reason to raise his submission for being the complaint as time barred, but merely by filing the complaint before expiry of period of 30 days will not render the same illegal. 6- Further, this court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioner at this stage especially under the circumstance when the evidence is still hazy and incomplete. Any judgment rendered by this Court would amount to pre-trial. It is the job of the trial judge to decide the matter on the basis of evidence to be colleted before it and then to decide the case on merits. However, I do not find any abuse of process of court and any flagrant injustice is to be caused to the petitioner at this stage, in case, if he faces the trial before the trial court. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the court below by summoning the petitioner as accused has committed any manifest error which may warrant the interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 4