IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 312/2006 Smt. Rashmi Bangwal …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 3285/2005, Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. Smt. Rashmi Bangwal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun in the Criminal Revision No. 43/2006 preferred against the aforesaid summoning order dated 16.3.2006. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint on 22.12.2005 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun against the petitioner alleging that on 17.2.2003, the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent no. 2 on 24 per cent annual interest and the husband of the petitioner had stood as guarantor for the payment of the said loan. Petitioner had also acknowledged the receipt of the aforesaid amount. But the petitioner did not return the money of the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner also took Rs. 14,000/- from the respondent no. 2 and in lieu of total amount i.e. Rs. 44,000/- along with interest, the petitioner had issued two cheques of Bank of Baroda, Dehradun bearing no. 600581 and 600582 of Rs. 35,000/- each dated 12.5.2005 and 10.6.2005 respectively. It was further alleged that when first cheque no. 600581 dated 12.5.2005 was presented by the complainant before the bank on 16.5.2005 but it was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds vide bank memo dated 19.5.2005 and thereafter a legal notice was sent to the petitioner and her husband as well, but the same was not complied with, hence the complainant had already filed a complaint which was registered as case no. 1154/2005 Ajay Srivastava v. Smt. Rashmi Bangwal & Anr., in which the petitioner/accused has already been summoned. It has been further alleged that when the second cheque bearing no. 600582 dated 10.6.2005 was presented in the bank by the respondent no. 2 on 18.10.2005, it was also dishonoured and was returned to the respondent no. 2 with the bank memo of “insufficient fund”. Thereafter respondent no. 2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 10.11.2005 making the demand of Rs. 35,000/- and the said notice was served upon the petitioner on 17.11.2005, but the petitioner failed to make the payment. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 filed the instant complaint. In support of his case, the respondent no. 2 also filed copy of pronote/receipt dated 17.2.2003 and acknowledge/AD before the trial court. Thereafter vide order dated 16.3.2006, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and summoned her for facing the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 27.4.2006. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reason that the averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 16.3.2006, revisional order dated 27.4.2006 and 2 other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned for facing the trial and her revision has also rightly been dismissed. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 12.5.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.7.2010 PRABODH 3