IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 564 of 2010 1. Omkar S/o Sri Ashok Kumar R/o House No. 1349, Mukharji Park, Near Prakash Mental Chock, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Naar (Haryana). 2. Vishwanath Kumar S/o Sri Sundar Singh R/o House No. 719 Shyam Sundari, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). ...…………. Petitioners Versus Mohd. Ikram S/o Mohd. Yusuf R/o Mohalla Old Tehsil Rampur Chungi, Dehradun Road, Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 1280 of 2009, Mohd. Ikram Vs. Omkar and another, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant has filed the criminal complaint before expiry of 15 days of the receipt of statutory notice required to be served on the accused (petitioners) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4) In view of principle of law laid down in Hemant Sharma Vs. Kishorilal Vanshkar 2009 (1) DCR 578 (M.P.), Smt. Hem Lata Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (1) DCR 36 (Allahabad), and Firm Naveen Project Ltd. and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2005 (2) DCR 534 (Rajasthan), it can be said that it is settled principle of law that where the criminal complaint is filed within 15 days of service of notice, the only requirement is that the summoning order (cognizance order) should be passed by the Magistrate after expiry of 15 days, of receipt of notice. 5) In the present case, though, the criminal complaint was presented within 15 days, but the summoning order has been passed and cognizance has been taken on 16.04.2009 (after expiry of 15 days of the service of notice), as such, there is no illegality in the summoning order. 3 6) The other facts pleaded in the petition are the factual disputes which can be examined by the trial court, after recording the evidence. 7) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing a single surety bond for each one of the petitioner, of the amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Interim order dated 09.06.2005 is hereby vacated. (Stay Application No. 597 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 17, 2010. H. Negi 4