IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C482 No. 309 of 2011 Umesh B. Bhandari …………….Applicant. Vs KLA India Public Limited ……………..Respondent. Present : Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. By means of this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the summoning order dated 4.1.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 805 of 2010 pending before the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court does not find any plausible reasons so as to interfere in this matter in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court, namely, Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs. Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle 2007 Cri. L.J. 2207 and has stated that on the basis of the said ruling, the summons were not liable to be issued against the petitioner. The above ruling of the Bombay High Court only lays down that the learned Magistrate before whom the complaint is made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must satisfy himself regarding the prima facie truthfulness of complaint under the parameters laid 2 down under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The above procedure has to be followed in spite of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The above ruling, all the same, is not helping the case of the petitioner inasmuch as from the summoning order dated 4.1.2011, it is clear that the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has done so within the parameters of Section 200 read with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the affidavit of one Ashwini Gupta under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was before the learned Magistrate and other material examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. were Authority Letter, Cheque Book, Returning Memo, Legal Notice, etc. No plausible reasons, therefore, exist for interference by this Court in its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present C482 petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.4.2011 Rathour