IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.765 of 2007 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) Arvind Kumar S/o Kalu Ram @ Babu ……. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Dated: November 23, 2011 Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Sri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. By way of this petition, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the order of cognizance dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in criminal complaint case no.1576/2007, titled as Prashant Kumar Vs. Arvind. In the said case, learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter will be called as the Act for brevity), whereby the petitioner Arvind Kumar was summoned to stand trial pursuant to the said order of cognizance. Having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, it transpires that the petitioner made an agreement to sell his house to respondent no.2 Prashant Kumar, whereagainst Rs.1.50 lacs were received by him as advance. Anyhow, the transaction could not be finalized, so, the petitioner allegedly returned the money of Rs.1.20 lacs vide impugned cheque dated 4.5.2007, which he had drawn from his banker State Bank of Patiala of his account no.010311, and the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- was given in cash by the petitioner to Prashant Kumar. The said cheque, when presented, was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds, so after issuing the notice on 2 19.5.2007, within the time prescribed under the Act, the complaint was filed on 15.6.2007. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of petitioner that on 20.11.2006, Pankaj Jain and Naveen Kumar Jain (two different persons, resident of Roorkee) came to his house, assaulted him and on the strength of pistol, forced the petitioner to sign upon two cheques in the chequebook being preserved in his room. They also apprised the petitioner that the sale deed of his house has been got executed on 8.8.2006, on the pretext of procuring his signature on some bail bonds. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that those two cheques were later on handed over by Pankaj Jain and Naveen Kumar Jain to Prashant Kumar and one Irshad, R/o Roorkee. So, these Prashant Kumar and Irshad, by misusing the cheques, as mentioned above, have filed this complaint under the Act. It has further been argued that the complaint filed by Arvind Kumar as well as by Sri Irshad is word by word identical, except the dates and the amount of cheques etc. After hearing the pros and cons, the Court is of the view that the story put forth by the petitioner is quite false, imaginary, concocted and fabricated. Even, it does not have a least substance. So, the petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order dated 12.10.2007, granted by this Court, is hereby vacated. Inform the court below to proceed with the trial ahead. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) November 23, 2011 Rajeev Dang