IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 80 of 2010 Sachin Kumar S/o Sri Kunwar Singh R/o Mohalla Bhup Singh, Jaspur, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Sukhveer Singh S/o Sri Gurdev Singh R/o Village Kaliawala, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Deep Chand Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent State. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2009; Sukhveer Singh Vs. Sachin Kumar, relating to offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the contents of the complaint are taken to be true, it is a case of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and not the one punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., in which the trial court has summoned the petitioner vide its impugned order dated 14.07.2009, passed in the aforesaid criminal complaint case. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had already reported to the bankers that the cheque book has been lost. 4) Whether, the cheque book of the petitioner had been lost or not, is a question of fact which cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As far as the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. are concerned, perusal of the criminal complaint and the statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate shows that the allegation in the complaint are that the complainant, who runs a dealership shop in the name and style M/s Guru Nanak Enterprises, had given a contract to the petitioner to run the shop. However, the dealership of the complainant (respondent No. 2) came to an end on 31.03.2009, where after there was dispute between the parties as to the settlement of their account. As per the criminal complaint, out of Rs. 8,50,000/- payable to the complainant, the petitioner for payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- gave three cheques, each amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. On presenting said cheques before the bankers it was found that the account number did not 3 tally. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that had it been a case of dishonour of cheque only on the ground of insufficiency of funds, it could have been said that it is a case punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that he has been cheated of the sum payable to him by giving forged cheques. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the points raised in the petition by the petitioner (accused) are factual in nature, and cannot be examined by this Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner may raise such pleas before the trial court, who can appreciate the same, after recording evidence adduced by the parties. 6) In the above circumstances, and for the reasons as discussed above, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned, and moved application for bail, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Interim order dated 28.01.2001, passed by this Court, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 09, 2010. H. Negi