IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 765/2005 Anil Bhathla …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents July 15, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, 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 petitioners have prayed for quashing the cognizance order dated 12.9.2003 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in complaint case no. 1104/2003, whereby he has taken the cognizance of the matter against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Surjeet Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner Anil Bhathla stating that petitioner had issued two cheques to him in lieu of the amount given by him for the business in partnership. But when these cheques were presented in the bank, they were dishonoured by the bank. Thereafter when the complainant demanded his money from the petitioner, he refused the return him the said money. The complaint also issued notice to the petitioner but he refused to accept the said notice. Thereafter the complainant/respondent no. 2 lodged the said complaint against the petitioner. The Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and in view of the other evidence available, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused and accordingly taken cognizance of the said offence vide order dated 12.9.2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reason that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and also by the other papers available on record. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of impugned order dated 12.9.2003, statements recorded under Section 200 and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioners is made out. 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 brought against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that cognizance order has rightly been passed against the petitioner 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 29.10.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 2