IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.482 of 2007 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Narendra Kumar ………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Dated: September 29, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this criminal miscellaneous application moved u/s 482/483 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no.2260 of 2007, Bala Gupta Vs. Narendra Kumar, under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC, pertaining to P.S. Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite party no.2 has been served personally but none has turned up on his behalf, so this Court has given hearing to learned counsel for the petitioner only. The bone of contention between the petitioner-Narendra Kumar as well as opposite party no.2- Bala Gupta lies in a sale and purchase of a television and refrigerator on dated 16.11.2004 for total consideration of Rs.16,490/-. Petitioner runs a shop, for the like electronic goods, to sell them. On the relevant date, opposite party no.2 purchased these two items but he did not pay the sale price in cash, and in lieu of that, he issued 20 post dated cheques of total worth Rs.22,200/- {since the interest reckoned on the original sale price Rs.16,490/-}. Out of these cheques, one cheque worth Rs.11,000/-, when submitted by the petitioner for collection of 2 payment, was dishonoured by the Bank. Petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent no.2 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on dated 6.10.2006 after observing all the requisite formalities envisaged under the Act. The Court, having recorded the statement of petitioner and after perusal of the relevant papers placed by complainant on record, took cognizance of the matter on dated 5.12.2006 for the offence of Section 138 of the Act and issued the summons to respondent no.2 asking him to stand for trial. Opposite party no.2 while noticing the filing of complaint by the petitioner and the order of cognizance nay issuing the summons, filed a complaint against the petitioner Narendra Kumar on dated 5.5.2007 stating that the petitioner has made fabrication in one of the Cheques issued by him as a sale consideration of television and fridge. This fabrication has been made by putting a digit/figure ‘1’ before the denomination of Rs.1,000/-, making it a Cheque of total denomination of Rs.11,000/-. When on 22.4.2007 at about 6 PM, opposite party no.2 went to the shop of petitioner to produce this fabrication, then the latter insulted him by slapping and hurling abuses. Petitioner asserted that he will have to recover Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/-. Bala Gupta- opposite party no.2 examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and produced two witnesses, Prithvi Chand and Mahipal u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar passed the impugned order of cognizance u/s 420/506 IPC asking the petitioner to stand for trial, assailing which the petitioner has filed this petition. Learned counsel of the petitioner contended that there could have been no alleged fabrication, as alleged by opposite 3 party no.2, because the cheque indicates the amount to the denomination of Rs.11,000/-, not only in digits/figures but also in words. When this cheque was dishonoured, in order to recover the same, the complaint u/s 138 of the Act on dated 6.10.2006, whereupon the order of cognizance was passed on 5.12.2006, then as a counterblast, the impugned complaint was filed against the petitioner by opposite party no.2 on 5.5.2007. Having heard the learned counsel of the petitioner, this Court is fully convinced that the allegation of fabrication in the Cheque is quite unsubstantial. The impugned complaint is a reflective counterblast in order to avenge the complaint filed by the petitioner Narendra Kumar against the opposite party no.2- Bala Gupta. So, this petition has got merits, which is liable to be allowed. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned complaint no.2260 of 2007, titled above, filed by opposite party no.2 on 5.5.2007 against the petitioner as well as the order of cognizance dated 4.6.2007 passed thereupon, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 29.9.2011 Rajeev Dang