IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1219 of 2010 Vinod Kumar Gupta. …..…Applicant. Versus Surya Prakash Gupta. …...…Respondent. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was in any way involved in the matter. It is further contended that complainant did not mention the name of the bank and to whom cheques were given. It is argued that complaint was filed after a delay of 9 years. Accordingly to learned counsel initially the complaint of the complainant was dismissed by the trial court, however, in revision, the Revisional court directed the trial court to reconsider the complaint and the evidence available on record. Perusal of the complaint shows that complainant had specifically mentioned the cheque numbers and the amount of money, which were handed over to petitioner and one agent Mr. A. S. Symon, on 09.06.1998, who in turn had disclosed to the complainant that the amount had been deposited with Chairman & Managing Director of Presto Export Limited, registered office B 7 and Chemical Industrial 2 Area, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh and General Manager, Canara Bank Stock Exchange Towers 51, J.C. Road, Bangalore. Since then the respondent, who invested all his retirel benefits on the suggestion of petitioner, had been enquiring about encashment of his debentures, but petitioner did not take any action. Accordingly, respondent is running from pillar to post and ultimately, he filed complaint in the court. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, if petitioner submits application for bail the same shall be decided expeditiously. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) 22.12.2010 SKS