IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 307 of 2010 Vijender Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Raj R/o 24-C, Village Masihgarh, New Delhi – 110 025. ...…………. Petitioner Versus Prem Singh Negi S/o Sh. Kirpal Singh Negi R/o Village Pandrola, Rampur, Tehsil Jakholi, Distt. Rudraprayag Uttarakhand. [ ...…………. Respondent Mr. Vikram Sehdev alongwith Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, Advocates for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 644 of 2008, Prem Singh Negi Vs. Vijender Singh, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 2 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s name is Vijender Kumar (not Vijender Singh), but he is being harassed on account of issuance of warrants of arrest against Vijender Singh in the aforesaid case. However, from the perusal of the papers on record it appears that the parentage and the address is the same. 4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not inclined to hold that whether the petitioner is the correct person or not, against whom the criminal complaint is filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable to direct the petitioner to appear in person on the next date, before the court concerned at Rudraprayag, so that the complainant may identify him and the dispute may be resolved. 5) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is summarily disposed of with the direction that the warrant of arrest issued in aforesaid case shall not be executed till 6th of May 2010. And, on or before said date the petitioner shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, in the aforesaid case. It is further observed that on his appearing before said 3 court, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, and it shall also be kept in mind that since the petitioner is resident of Delhi, so local sureties may not necessarily be pressed. It is further observed that it shall be open for the petitioner to raise the point as to the identity of the accused before the trial court, during the trial. (Stay Application No. 332 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 13, 2010. H. Negi