IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 818/2005 Vishal Chaddha …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 23, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. 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 case no. 191/2005 Umesh Arora v. Vishal Chaddha under Section 138 of NI Act pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that respondent no. 2 as well as the father of the petitioner are Advocates. The petitioner took undue advantage of this relationship and borrowed Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent no. 2 and in lieu the petitioner gave a cheque of the aforesaid amount to the respondent no. 2. On 31.1.2005, when the said cheque was presented by the respondent no. 2 before the bank under the instructions of the petitioner, it was dishonoured by the bank with the remark “account closed”. Thereafter despite repeated requests and demands, the petitioner never returned the money of respondent no. 2. Then respondent no. 2 gave a legal notice to the petitioner but even then the money was not paid to the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 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/accused and accordingly summoned him vide order dated 16.5.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force 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 16.5.2005, statement recorded under Section 200 and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under 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. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 23.11.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.7.2010 PRABODH 2 3