IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.304 of 2007 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) M/s Honey Tractors … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Opposite Parties Dated: July 9, 2010 Sri DK Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Amit Bhatt, learned AGA for the State/Respondent No.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. By means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the summoning order dated 8.2.2007 as well as the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.104 of 2007, M/s Singh Tractors v. Honey Tractors, pending in the court of Addl. CJM, Kashipur, US Nagar u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act). In brief the facts of the case are that a complaint was moved by the respondent no.2 before the trial court with the averments that the petitioner issued a Cheque No.22209 dated 20.12.2006 of Nainital Bank, Rudrapur for Rs.3,19,368/-. When the said cheque was presented in the Bank by the respondent no.2 for collection, that came out to be dishonored on 23.12.2006. A notice was also given to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 through his Advocate on 6.1.2007, which was also sufficiently served upon the petitioner, however neither any reply was given nor the amount was paid to the respondent no.2. Hence the present complaint was filed. The complainant/respondent no.2 brought on record the original cheque, receipt of notice-dated 6.1.2006, receipt of registry and other documents before the trial court in support of his case. 2 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below proceeded to summon the petitioner u/s 138 of the Act vide order dated 8.2.2007. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below erred in summoning the petitioner. I do not find any force in this argument. In the present case, the cheque was issued on 20.12.2006 and on the same day that was deposited in the bank for collection and the bank has informed on 23.12.2006 that the said cheque was dishonored. Thereafter, the notice was issued by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner on 6.1.2007, which was also duly served upon the petitioner. However, even then neither any reply thereof was given by the petitioner, nor the payment was made to the respondent no.2 and ultimately on 29.1.2007, the complaint was filed by the complainant in the court. As such, the requirement of Section 138 has been made without their being any delay. As such the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act prima facie made out against the petitioner at this stage. 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. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the complainant, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced 3 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. For the reasons recorded above, the application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 22.5.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 9, 2010 Rajeev Dang