IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 134 of 2004 Vijay Bhushan Pandey & another … Applicants Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate & another … Opposite Parties Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2045/2001 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate – II, Dehradun under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, and 406 and 420 of I.P.C. It has further prayed that the operation of the aforesaid case pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate – I, Dehradun be stayed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and 406, 420 of I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun which was registered as Criminal Case No. 2045 of 2001. It has alleged in the complaint that a forged cheque for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- dated 29.11.2000 towards payment of maturity of amount of complaints investment of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the complainant by the applicants, but the same was bounced due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 11.06.2001 by the complainant through his counsel. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 20.07.2001 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. against the applicants. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants have preferred this petition for quashing the proceedings under the aforesaid case. 4. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the applicants are not the directors of Alaknanda Group of companies as mentioned in the complaint, whereas the applicants are directors of Alaknanda Plantation Ltd., a company which is under the process of winding up. Therefore, the false complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants, which is liable to be set aside. 6. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the documents filed before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidences are incomplete and hazy as yet. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicants shall have an 3 opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the stay order dated 26.03.2004 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.08.2009 ASWAL