IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting (Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of Case Criminal Misc. Application No. 439 of 2005 Narayan Shroff Vs. Ganga Datt & another Date of decision:- 16.7.05 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for reporting Initials of Judge Date:- 16.7.2005 Note:- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 439 of 2005 Narayan Shroff S/o Ram Ballabh Shroff, R/o Gopal Bhwan Haridwar. Tehsil and District- Haridwar. ………Applicant Versus 1. Ganga Datt Ghatori S/o Khema Nand Ghatori Proprietor Ganga Datt Ghatori And Bros. Transport Khari Bazar, Lohaghat, District – Champwat. 2. Session Judge, District- Pithoragarh. ………Respondents Dated :- 16-7-2005 Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 167/2003 Ganga Datt Ghatori Vs. Manager Magnaside and Minerals Ltd and Criminal Revision No. 17/2004 Narayan Shroff Vs. Ganga Datt Ghatori. The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by respondent No.1 against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument, Act alleging therein that the respondent No. 1 being the Manager of the company was summoned before the court below and he appeared before the trial court. He obtained bail and thereafter he did not appear before the court below for the last four years. Process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. was also issued. Thereafter, he appeared. The learned Magistrate followed the procedure of a warrant trial even though it was a summon trial. After recording the evidence of the complainant charge was framed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present petition has been filed. It is on record that few cheques were issued by the company. It is alleged that by the complainant that these cheques were issued by the applicant being the manager of the company. The applicant has contended before this court that cheques were issued by Sri K.C. Mishra the then Manager of the Company. It was further contended that the respondent No.1 was not the Manager of the Company at the relevant time. It was argued that the complainant should have arrayed the Director of the Company as a party who was responsible to pay the money. I have gone through the record and perused the papers filed by the applicant. It is well settled position of the law that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.c. cannot evaluate the evidence, which is to be adduced before the court below during the trial. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that he was not the Manager of the Company at that relevant time when cheques were issued. It was further contended that the offenders were liable to pay the said amount and not the Manager. This contention can be raised before the court below during the trial. This fact being a matter of evidence is to be adjudicated during the trial. This court cannot embark upon the evidence of the parties’ facts, which are to be adduced before the trial court. However, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that his personal appearance may be exempted till further orders. It is open to the applicant to move an application before the trial court and the court below may consider the same in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, the petition devoids of merit and is dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 16-07-2005 MPS