IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 313 of 2010 Neeraj Kumar Tyagi S/o late Jai Prakash Tyagi R/o B-5 / 271, Sector –7, Rohini, New Delhi –85. ...…………. Petitioner Versus Allied Glasses Plot No. 124, Raipur, Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, District Haridwar Through its Partner Gaurav Bansal ...…………. Respondent Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 529 of 2009; Allied Glasses Vs. Competent Glasses, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of First Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 2 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court at Roorkee has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 4) However, perusal of the criminal complaint copy of which is annexed as Annexure –1 to the petition discloses that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Roorkee court. The relevant paragraph is being reproduced below: “;g fd foi{kh la0 2 Competent Glasses ds uke ls ifjoknh dh QeZ ls m/kkj eky ysrk Fkk mlus le; le; ij tks eky ifjoknh dh QeZ ls m/kkj fy;k mldh ,ot esa pSd la0 614807 eqcfyx ,d yk[k #Ik;s fnaukd 12&7&2009] pSd la0 614808 eqcfyx ,d yk[k #Ik;s fnaukd 24&7&2009] pSd la0 614809 eqcfyx ,d yk[k #Ik;s fnaukd 3&8&2009 tks cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] U;w lCth e.Mh] vktkniqj] ubZ fnYyh ij ns; Fks] ifjoknh dh QeZ ds uke Hkjdj ,ao vksFkjkbZTM flXusVfj ds #Ik esa gLrk{kj djds ifjoknh dh QeZ ds dk;ZLFky IykV ua0 124] jk;iqj&Hkxokuiqj&#Mdh] ftyk gfj}kj ij ifjoknh dks fn;s …………………………………” 5) In the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot examine the disputed questions of fact such as whether the cheques were actually given in the premises of the complainant firm within the territorial limits of Roorkee or not, and it is for the trial court to see said issue when the parties adduce their evidence before it. It is also pleaded that the complainant was not served with the notice before the criminal complaint is filed. 3 Said question is also disputed question of fact, as the same is against what had been stated in the criminal complaint. As such, said question can also be examined only by the trial court after recording the evidence. 6) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 15, 2010. H. Negi 4