IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 789 of 2005 Tej Singh S/o Shri Ram Jeewan R/o Bullawala, P.S. Doiwala, D istrict Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) 2. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Prem Chand R/o 80-E, Tilak Road, Dehradun District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent No. 1 / State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2012 of 2003, State Vs. Tej Singh, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2 3) In nutshell, the allegations in the first information report are that the petitioner agreed to execute sale deed in respect of property situated in Khasra No. 54 of Mohkampur Kalan to the complainant, but did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the two parties entered into compromise, and it was agreed that on making payment of ` 3,30,000/- by the petitioner to the complainant, he (complainant) shall not take any action. It is alleged in the first information report that when the cheque of ` 3,30,000/- given by the petitioner was presented before the Bankers, the same got dishonoured with the endorsement ‘insufficiency of funds’. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a simple case of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as such, the impugned trial cannot proceed further. 5) Having gone through the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit on record, and after going through the contents of the first information report, this court finds that the complainant has in substance alleged cheating committed by the petitioner with him. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in respect of offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cheque was never given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2. It is a question of fact which 3 cannot be examined by this court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is for the trial court to examine whether the cheque was given or not, as alleged by the complainant. 6) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this court is of the view that the impugned trial needs no interference. It is observed that the petitioner may raise all pleas of innocence, including legal pleas, before the trial court. 7) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Tej Singh surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Interim order dated 17.11.2005, passed by this court, stands vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 21, 2011. H. Negi 4