IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.766 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Madhu Bhathla …………Applicant Versus State and two others …………Respondents Dated: July 07, 2010 Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 12.9.2003 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.1105 of 2003, whereby the learned Special J.M. took the cognizance against the applicant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act). It has further been prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Jasveer Kaur filed a complaint against the applicant Madhu Bhathala before Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 30.5.2002 with the allegations that the applicant was proprietor of Super Selection Boutique. There were good terms between the applicant and respondent no.2. In lieu of guarantee for the money, invested in partnership, the petitioner/applicant gave a cheque bearing no.151046 dated 15.4.2002 amounting Rs.45,000/- payable 2 at Union Bank of India to the respondent no.2. It is alleged that on 17.4.2002 the said cheque was presented in the bank for payment by the respondent no.2, but the same was dishonoured with the note of insufficient funds. Thereafter, a registered notice was sent to the petitioner on 24.4.2002 that was served on the petitioner. Thereafter, this complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.513 of 2002 against the applicant. The complainant in support of his case examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his order dated 12.9.2003 took the cognizance against the applicant Madhu Bhathla u/s 138 of the Act. Against that order, the applicant has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. as well as after perusing the other documents on record, prima facie a case u/s 138 of 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., the High 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 judge. If the allegations made in the complaint 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 3 present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 29.10.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.07.2010 RG