IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 266 of 2003 1. M/s Ajeet Enterprises 127/611, S-Block, Vinoba Nagar Near Juhi Depot Chauraha Kanpur 208014 through its Proprietor Sri Ajeet Kumar Jain 2. Ajeet Kumar Jain S/o Sri Prem Chandra Jain R/o 83/184 Juhi Parampurva Kanpur, District Kanpur … Applicants Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Sri Vigyan Prakash Gupta Proprietor M/s Vigyan Lime and Chemicals G-37 Race Course Dehradun … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants Sri B.S. Thind, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the summoning order dated 18.03.2002 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. IInd, Dehradun as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1518 of 2002, Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs M/s Ajeet Enterprises & others, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. IInd, Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case that that on 19.02.2002, the respondent No. 2 filed a Case No.1518 of 2002 in the court of Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, under Section 120B I.P.C. and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging therein that the petitioner No. 1 got the supply of lime from the respondent No. 2 and on 06.02.2001, a sum of Rs. 42,786.70 was payable by the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 – Ajeet Kumar Jain and co-accused Smt. Krishna Devi entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other. The co- accused Smt. Krishna Devi issued some cheques in favour of the respondent No. 2 which were dishonoured by the banker of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint against the petitioners on 19.02.2002 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., IInd, Dehradun which was registered as Case No. 1518 of 2002. 3. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complaint/respondent No. 2 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and on the on the basis of the statement, he issued summoning order vide order dated 18.03.2002 against the petitioners as well as Smt. Krishna Devi under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the petitioners preferred this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them as well as summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.S. Thind, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the applicants have not given any order for supply of lime to the respondent No. 2. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has made a rival contention on the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. In the counter affidavit as well as in the complaint lodged against the petitioners, it has been alleged by the respondent No. 2 that on 06.02.2001 a sum of Rs. 42,786.70 was payable by the applicant No. 1 against the said transaction. Therefore, it is not disputed that the said transaction took place between the parties and I agree with the submission raised by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the cheques were issued by Smt. Krishna Devi. It has further alleged that the complaint himself admitted this fact that the cheques were duly signed by Smt. Krishna Devi, therefore, no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 9. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner No. 2 introduced Smt. Krishna Devi to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 in his complaint alleged that the petitioner No. 2 and Smt. Krishna Devi entered into a criminal conspiracy against him. Therefore, this fact cannot be ignored that the petitioner No. 2 and Smt. Krishna Devi made a criminal conspiracy against the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 2 introduced her with the respondent No. 2. 10. Perusal of the entire record, it has further come to my knowledge that the petitioner No. 2, during the pendency of this case made part payment of Rs. 7,500/- by bank draft bearing No. 954638 dated 17.05.2003 drawn on State Bank of India, Vinoba Nagar, Kanpur in favour of Vigyan Lime & Chemicals. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners got the supply of lime and made the part payment, which is due against them. 11. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no abuse of process of the court in this case. The learned Magistrate did not commit any error by passing the summoning order. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 13. The stay order dated 03.11.2003 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.02.2008 ASWAL