2025:UHC:3229 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 874 of 2024 05th December, 2025 Rajeev Agrawal --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned DAG with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder (appeared through V.C.) for the State. None is present for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Today, the matter is listed on recall application MCRC No.2/2025 which has been filed along with delay condonation application (IA No.3/2025). Delay Condonation application (IA No.3/2025) 2. The opportunity had already been granted to respondent no. 2 to file objections to the recall application as well as to the delay-condonation application. However, no objection to either the delay-condonation application or the recall application has been filed so far. 3. In view of the aforesaid, the delay of nine days in filing the recall application has been sufficiently explained and is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the delay- condonation application stands allowed. Even no one is present for respondent no.2 today. Recall Application (MCRC No.2/2025) 4. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the recall application, and in view of the fact that the earlier counsel for the applicant expired during the pendency of the case, the recall application is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 29.04.2025 is hereby 2025:UHC:3229 2 recalled. The present C-482 application is restored to its original number. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant on merits of the C482 application. 6. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 02.04.2024, annexure-8, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.125 of 2023, summoning order dated 15.02.2023, annexure-7 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.315 of 2023, Motiram Jain vs. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). 7. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, with the intention of paying the dues of respondent no. 2, issued three cheques—Cheque No. 532687 dated 08.09.2022 for Rs.85,00,000/-, Cheque No. 532690 dated 12.09.2022 for Rs.45,00,000/-, and Cheque No. 112230 dated 25.09.2022 for Rs.1,30,00,000/-. Respondent no. 2 presented these cheques for collection to his banker, Punjab National Bank, Kashipur Branch, but they were dishonoured and returned unpaid. Respondent no.2 informed the applicant of this through a registered notice dated 21.12.2022 sent through his advocate. Despite the expiry of the notice period, the applicant has not paid the amounts mentioned in the said cheques. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint case under the Act, 1881 against the applicant and the same was registered as Complaint 2025:UHC:3229 3 Case No.315 of 2023, Motiram Jain vs. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In support of complaint, respondent filed his affidavit of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The trial court on the said complaint took cognizance against the applicant under the Act, 1881 and summoned him to face the trial vide order dated 15.02.2023. Applicant challenged the said order in Criminal Revision No.125 of 2023, Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. State & another and the same was dismissed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 02.04.2024. Thus, applicant is before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial court issued summons against the applicant in a very erroneous manner completely ignoring the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C., as the applicant is residing at a place beyond the jurisdiction of learned trial court. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the cheques in question were given to the respondent in lieu of executing a sale deed which actually was not executed. The complainant in order to falsely implicate the applicant has instituted the present proceedings, which is nothing but a gross misuse of process of law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are dependent upon the evidences adduced during trial. Such disputed question of facts could only be gone into by the trial court after evidence having been adduced by both the parties. This Court while invoking its 2025:UHC:3229 4 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not armored with to dissect the disputed question of facts as alleged at this stage. Therefore, no force is made out in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. In order to make out a case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has to satisfy the Court that even if the entirety of the case of the prosecution has taken as true, no case is made out. But, here this is not a case, therefore, this Court doesn’t incline to interfere into the matter. 10. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for applicant regarding not conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same is also not tenable. In support of his complaint, the respondent-complainant has produced affidavit under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and produced documentary evidence as well u/s 202 Cr.P.C. which was inquired by the learned Magistrate. It is only thereafter, cognizance was taken and applicant was summoned. There was sufficient material before the learned Magistrate to summon the applicant under Section 138 of the Act. In such a situation, no further inquiry was needed. No illegality or perversity is there in the impugned summoning order. 11. In view of the above, the present C482 application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.12.2025 AK 2025:UHC:3229 5