2025:UHC:4748 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1903 of 2023 10 June, 2025 Mohd Aslam --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 12.02.2021, passed by learned Additional CJM, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No.956 of 2020, Nasrat vs. Mohd. Aslam, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1881”). 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that due to their being previous relations between the complainant as well as the accused, a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs was issued by the complainant to the applicant with the assurance to return the money within six months. After lapse of aforesaid time, when the complainant demanded his money from the applicant several times, he (applicant issued a Cheque No.001407) amounting to Rs.3 lakhs with the assurance that the same would be honoured as and when the same is produced. The complainant accordingly presented the said cheque for payment in his bank, which was returned to him on 09.09.2020 with the remark of ‘anomaly in the signatures of account holder’. The complainant then sent the registered notice which was served upon the applicant and accordingly after 1 2025:UHC:4748 lapse of considerable time, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 before the court below. On the said complaint, the court below by way of impugned order took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. 3. The sole argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that in this case there is non-compliance of provision of Section 141 of the Act. It was further argued that in view of Section 141 of the Act, once the instrument has been issued by the company or the firm, the same is required to be impleaded necessarily which was not done by respondent herein in the complaint proceedings before the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant also admits this fact that there was violation of Section 141 of the Act, 1881 in this case. 5. In such view of the matter, present C482 petition is allowed. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 12.02.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.956 of 2020, Nasrat vs. Mohd. Aslam are hereby quashed. 6. However, it is observed that quashing of present proceedings would not be construed as an impediment for the respondent to prefer fresh proceedings before the competent court of law after compliance of the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, 1881. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025 AK 2