2025:UHC:1923 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 1072 of 2024 19 March, 2025 Munnu Giri --Petitioner Versus Mahaveer Singh --Respondent Presence:- Mr. M S Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent. Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. This C528 petition has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Case No.30 of 2024 “Mahaveer Singh Vs. Munnu Giri” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 along with entire proceedings of the above case. 2. By the impugned order learned Trial Court summoned the petitioner /accused to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (for short “N.I. Act”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner/ accused has given whole amount due to the brother of the complainant; 1 2025:UHC:1923 that, the application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act filed by the respondent/complainant has also been rejected by the Trial Court; that, the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the impugned summoning order along with entire proceedings of the case may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused are nothing but it is a matter of evidence whether any money was paid to Mahaveer Singh (brother of the complainant) or not and, if any money was paid, whether that was for discharge of the cheque liability or not, it cannot be decided in this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would further submit that merely rejection of his application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned summoning order along with entire proceeding of the case. 6. Perused the record in view of the submissions made above and in the considered view of this Court, it is not a fit case, in which, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. should 2 2025:UHC:1923 venture into the propriety of the matter. 7. In view of the above, there is no good ground made out to interfere in the impugned orders, accordingly, the C528 petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 19.03.2025 ss 3