IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 887/2006 Ravinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents October 6, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5049/2004 pending before the Judicial Magistrate CBI, Dehradun under Section 138 of NI Act. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 had old business interests. Petitioner had to give Rs. 7,70,000/- to the respondent no. 2, out of which he had given Rs. 30,000/- on 19.5.2004 and assured to pay the rest amount later. When the complainant demanded the rest amount, then the petitioner gave him a postdated cheque of Rs. 7,40,000/-. When the said cheque was deposited in the bank, it got dishonoured by the bank on 28.7.2004 due to insufficient funds. Thereafter the complainant gave legal notice to the petitioner on 18.8.2004, but the petitioner despite service of the notice did not return the money to the respondent. Thereafter the respondent lodged this complaint against the petitioner. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and in view of the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 138 of NI Act is made out against the petitioner and accordingly summoned him vide order dated 4.12.2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force 2 in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 4.12.2004, statement recorded under Section 200 and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under Section 138 of NI Act is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. 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. If the allegations made and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statement of the complainant are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. It is well settled principle of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, 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 trial court. Therefore, I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 3 Interim order dated 28.2.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 6.10.2010 PRABODH