IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 598 of 2007 Swarn Singh ………..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ….Respondents. Present: Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2. Date of Decision: 16.09.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1 and Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2. This Criminal Misc. application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order dated 5.2.2007 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, in Complaint Case No. 984 of 2007 Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Swarn Singh under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the court below has taken cognizance of a complaint made by the complainant/respondent no.2 and issued summons against the applicant. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant issued two cheques of Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.3,85,000/- respectively to Mr. Rajat Gupta (son of the complainant/respondent no.2). The aforesaid cheques were endorsed by Sri Rajat Gupta in favour of the complainant. As per the FIR the applicant approached the complainant in June, 2005 and requested him not to present the said two cheques, as there was no sufficient funds in his account. Subsequently, the aforesaid cheques were presented in the Bank which was dishonoured due to reasons “Payment stopped by the drawer” and ‘Insufficient funds”. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint against the applicant under section 138 of the Act on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against the present applicant. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheques were not given in the name of the complainant but in the name of his son Sri Rajat Gupta and therefore, there was no apparent liability against the complainant and therefore, there was no cause of action for filing the complaint. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant has also alleged tempering with the date on cheques. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that though the cheques were drawn in the name of Sri Rajat Gupta who was the son of the complainant and he has duly endorsed the cheques in the name of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had a right to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. This Court finds no good ground to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The present C-482 application is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order dated 10.1.2008 is also vacated. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 16.09.2010 Kuldeep