2025:UHC:4851 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.77 of 2024 10th June, 2025 M/s R.M. Enterprises and another …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.78 of 2024 Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.79 of 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Santosh Shukla, Advocate for the applicants, through video conferencing. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. In all these C482 applications the parties are one and the same and the bone of contention is also common. Hence all these matters are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of brevity facts of C482 No.77 of 2024 are taken into consideration. In a nutshell facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 was filed by respondent no.2 against the applicants herein stating that due to there being family relations between respondent no.2 and the applicants, the applicants demanded a sum of ₹30,00,000/- from the father of respondent no.2, which primarily was refused, but subsequently on the pretext of giving annual interest on the said amount, the respondent no.2 transferred a sum of ₹30,00,000/- in favour of the applicants by way of R.T.G.S. After lapse of time, on persistent demands when 1 2025:UHC:4851 the money was not returned, respondent no.2 once again exerted pressure upon the applicants to return the amount lent in interest. Against the said demand, the applicants issued three cheques each of ₹10,00,000/- being Cheque Nos.027983, 027984 and 027985. When respondent no.2 presented the said cheques for repayment in his bank account the same was returned to the informant with the remark “insufficient funds”. Respondent no.2 then sent notice to the applicants on his true and actual address which according to the tracking report of Indian Postal Department has been served upon the applicants. The applicants even thereafter did not make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque after 15 days period as mentioned in the notice. The complainant then produce his evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with other documentary evidence viz cheque in original, cheque returning money receipts etc. 3. The trial court on being satisfied with prima facie case of Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 took cognizance against the applicants and summoned them to face the trial by way of order dated 18.03.2020. Assailing the said order the applicants preferred a Criminal Revision No.19 of 2023 an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. The revisional court by way of order dated 01.02.2023 dismissed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Assailing both the orders present C482 applications have been filed. 4. The facts in sum and substance in all these matters are one and the same. 5. Counter affidavit(s) have been filed in these cases wherein orders passed by the courts below have 2 2025:UHC:4851 been supported. The ground taken by the applicants that the notice was served on the incorrect and false address of the applicants was also stated to be false one. 6. Applicants have also filed their rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that it is evident that no notice was sent to the applicant no.1 on his registered address. 7. The averments made in the C482 applications have been reiterated also in rejoinder affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the notice sent by respondent no.2 to applicant no.1 was never served on his correct address and on the ground alone the entire proceedings are quashed. 9. This argument has been dealt with in great detail by the revisional court, wherein it has been held out that the applicants had already filed his application before the Subordinate Court immediately after the summoning order. 10. The court also recorded the finding of fact that the applicant deliberately caused the delay where no plausible explanation was given in the application. 11. Accordingly the application filed under Section 5 of the Limiation Act, 1963 was dismissed by the revisional court. Moreover the counsel for the applicants could not point out any gross irregularity or illegality to show that the order passed by trial court suffers from any illegality or perversity. 12. Insofar as the fact of serving of summon on the correct address or the illegality or that there was no plausible explanation on behalf of respondent no.2 about giving the money as a legal enforceable debt, all these 3 2025:UHC:4851 facts cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the legal factual aspect should be and must be left open to be decided by the competent court having jurisdiction. 13. A feeble attempt was made on behalf of the applicants that the revisional court has not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties and dismissed the revision mainly on the ground of delay. 14. This argument again does not hold any water for the same reason that the revisional court has recorded a finding of fact that applicants’ intention was nothing but to delay the proceedings and this Court can well infer the said attempt on the part of the applicants. 15. In view of what has been stated hereinabove all, these C482 applications are devoid of any merits and thus dismissed. 16. The trial court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial in all these matters forthwith since it is lying pending for last around 6 years. 17. Interim order, if any, stand vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025 SK 4