2025:UHC:3380 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1851 of 2022 01st May, 2025 Pramod Jaiswal ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kapruwan, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the cognizance and summoning order dated 01.11.2021 in Criminal Case No.259 of 2021 (New No. 450 of 2021), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun as well as order dated 27.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Case No.234 of 2022, passed by court of learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that respondent no.2 lodged a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 against M/s J.B. Enterprises through its proprietor Promod Jaiswal/applicant, in which it is mentioned that the applicant issued a Cheque No.831631 dated 15.02.2021 of S.B.I amounting to ₹34,65,000/- in favour of complainant firm. The said cheque was bounced on 22.03.2021 with the remarks “fund insufficient”. Regarding the alleged cheque, notice was received by applicant’s firm to which reply was given on 26.03.2021. Even after service of notice, the applicant did not pay the amount under cheque to the respondent. 3. The trial court on the said complaint took cognizance against the applicant under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and summoned him to face the trial vide order dated 01.11.2021. Challenging the order of summoning, the applicant moved a Criminal Misc. Case No.234 of 2022 before learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun whereby the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the said revision at admission stage vide order dated 27.05.2022. Feeling aggrieved against both the orders 1 2025:UHC:3380 the applicant is before this Court. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that since the complainant and accused are from different districts, then the strict compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. by conducting enquiry is not done. He further submits that it is no where mentioned in the complaint that what kind of legally recoverable debt or liability was there against the petitioner’s firm. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out a single error in the summoning order passed by learned trial court. Prima facie offence alleged against the applicant is made out and he has been rightly summoned. From the summoning order impugned it is well reflected that the applicant has been summoned by the learned trial court on the basis of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant/company and documentary evidence produced by him. That is the sufficient compliance of provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is far far- fetched. The “inquiry” contemplated in Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been sufficiently done. Thus no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly the present C482 application is dismissed. 8. Interim order dated 03.11.2022 stands vacated. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.05.2025 SK 2