2025:UHC:10588 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No.2123 of 2025 28 November, 2025 Sadan Lal --Applicant Versus Satish Kumar --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C528 application, the applicant has challenged the cognizance/ summoning order dated 12.10.2021 in Complaint Case No.340 of 2021, Satish Vs. Sadan Lal, passed by learned First Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby, the applicant was summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that a cheque No.768613 amounting to Rs. 12 Lakhs was issued by the applicant to respondent-complainant on 23.12.2020, which was dishonored on 28.01.2021 while presenting by respondent-complainant to his Bank Account with a remark ‘funds insufficient’. He sent a legal notice dated 06.02.2021 stating the entire facts of dishonour of the cheque on the ground as stated above which was served upon the applicant on 10.02.2021. Applicant despite service of notice upon him, didn’t return the amount under cheque in-dispute, thus, the respondent filed complaint against the applicant, which was registered as Complaint Case No.340 of 2021, Satish Vs. Sadan Lal. 2025:UHC:10588 2 3. The respondent-complainant got himself examined under the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and produced relevant documentary evidence to substantiate his version. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took the cognizance of the matter and summoned the applicant under Section 138 of the Act vide order dated 12.10.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance/ summoning order dated 12.10.2021 as well as the launching of the complaint case, the applicant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is presently posted as Consolidation Officer, 2nd Roorkee, District Haridwar and is on the verge of age of superannuation. He contends that the present case is misuse of a cheque as the applicant is not even known to the respondent-complainant; in fact the drive of applicant was known to Rajkumar, who is shown as a witness by respondent-complainant. The two cheques under dispute were given by the applicant to the said Rajkumar for the school fees of the children, in which no amount was written by the applicant and the same were to be given to applicant’s wife. But, by the time Rajkumar reached to his wife, the fees was deposited and thereafter, inadvertently, these cheques remained in possession of Rajkumar, which were, later on, misused by writing the exuberant amount on the said cheques by the respondent. 6. He further submits that the impugned summoning order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside as the learned Court Below has not conducted any mandatory inquiry as contemplated under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and Section 2025:UHC:10588 3 202(2) Cr.P.C., in spite of the fact that admittedly the applicant lives beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court Below taking cognizance. 7. He also submits that the learned Court Below has acted in a mechanical manner to summon the applicant without even looking into this aspect that whether a person can give such a big amount in cash to someone or not and that too having the capacity to lend such an amount, thus, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 8. 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 as to whether the cheque was blank or not and who had put the entry on the cheque, is 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 inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is not armored with to dissect the disputed question of facts as alleged at this stage. Therefore, no force is made out in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. In order to make out a case for interference under Section 528 of BNSS, 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. 9. 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 2025:UHC:10588 4 respondent-complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and submitted all the documentary evidence like cheques, bank memo of dishonor, registered notices and its receipt. 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. Further, the complaint was filed in the year 2021 and despite being District Level Officer, applicant has uptill now evaded the summons and it is only after when bailable warrant was issued against him, he filed the present C528 application before this Court. It is nothing but a delaying tactics by the applicant. Such an action of the applicant cannot be encouraged. 10. In view of the above, the present C528 application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed in-limine. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 28.11.2025 PN