IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.420 OF 2007 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Babu Lal Arora …………Applicant Versus Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and another …………Respondents Dated: August 12, 2010 Mrs. Monica Pant, Adv. holding brief of Ms. Meenu Sharma, Adv. for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State 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 summoning order dated 12.8.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as quashing of proceedings of case no.505 of 2006, Col. D.S. Rawat v. Babu Lal Arora, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Col. D.S. Rawat filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun against the applicant with the allegations that the complainant had given Rs.1.00 Lac to the applicant for the purchase of a plot but after the lapse of sufficient time, the applicant did not provide him a plot. Consequently, the complainant demanded his money back and in this regard the applicant issued two cheques each of Rs.50,000/- bearing nos.424381 dated 15.7.2005 and Cheque no.635712 dated 22.9.2005 in favour of the complainant. But when the cheque bearing no.635712 dated 22.9.2005 of Rs.50,000/- was presented in the bank by the complainant, the same was dishonoured and returned back to the complainant by the bank. Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered notice through his counsel to the applicant requesting to refund the amount within 15 days, which was also served on the applicant. But even after service of the notice, the applicant did not refund the money of the complainant. With these averments, respondent no.2 Col. D.S. Rawat filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, against the applicant which was registered as Case No.505 of 2006 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant in support of his case got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. he filed the copies of original cheque, deposit slip, memorandum slip and notice. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun vide his order dated 12.8.2006, summoned the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 12.8.2006, the applicant has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Section 138 of N.I. 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., this 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 court. If the allegations made in the complaint and the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence, 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 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.8.2010 RG