2025:UHC:10203 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 1987 of 2025 18 November, 2025 Bir Prasad Sunar --Applicant Versus Manoj Kumar --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mahavir Kohli, learned counsel for the applicant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this C528 application, applicant has put to challenge the summoning order dated 31.08.2023, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Pauri Garhwal as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1013 of 2023, Manoj Kumar vs. Bir Prasad Sunar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the respondent lodged a complaint against the applicant alleging that, being well-acquainted due to their good relations and friendship, the applicant requested Rs. 5 lakhs from the respondent for his personal needs, assuring that the amount would be returned promptly. The respondent gave Rs. 5 lakhs to the applicant. Subsequently, on several occasions, the respondent requested repayment of the said amount. It is further stated that the applicant later issued cheque number 000006 for Rs.5 lakhs dated 30.06.2023 in favor of the respondent. The cheque was presented on 30.06.2023 but was dishonoured on 01.07.2023 with the remark “funds insufficient.” Thereafter, the respondent sent a 2025:UHC:10203 2 registered notice through his Advocate on 08.07.2023, but even after the notice was served, the applicant failed to repay the cheque amount. 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. Challenging the said order of summoning, the applicant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant never issued a cheque in the name of the respondent or any other person. The respondent himself filled in the cheque with the amount and presented it to the Bank, whereas the applicant had only provided a signed blank cheque to the respondent for the purposes of their business. He further submits that the applicant never wrote any name or amount on the disputed cheque. He also contends that the present complaint has been filed by the respondent merely to misuse the cheque and to extort money through a wrongful act by involving the judicial system, which is impermissible under the provisions of law. Additionally, he submits that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that the complaint was filed in Pauri Garhwal while the applicant is a resident of Dehradun. Consequently, the applicant was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court, and it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to conduct an inquiry as provided under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.; however, no such inquiry was conducted. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that neither any evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C. nor any inquiry was conducted by the learned 2025:UHC:10203 3 trial court thus, the order passed by learned Magistrate is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that learned counsel appearing 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. 7. 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/respondent 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-fetched. The “inquiry” contemplated in Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been sufficiently done. Thus no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 528 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the present C528 application is dismissed in-limine. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.11.2025 AK