2025:UHC:10674 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No.2134 of 2025 01 December, 2025 Lakshmi --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for applicant. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C528 application, the applicant has challenged the cognizance/summoning order dated 27.08.2024 in Criminal Case No.662 of 2024 Komal Devi Vs. Lakshmi, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital, 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. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant along with her husband was residing in the rented house of the husband of respondent No.2; applicant opened a bank account with Bandhan Bank and issued cheque book showing the then present address of respondent No.2, but when the dispute regarding the amount, which had deceitfully usurped by respondent No.2 and her husband arose, respondent No.2 ousted the applicant and her husband from her house. He further submits that the thing - opening bank 2025:UHC:10674 2 account and application for issuance of cheque book in the address of respondent No.2, has slipped from the mind of applicant and her husband and respondent No.2 with the ill intention and to counter the criminal case filed by applicant’s husband (which was registered as Criminal Case No.2740 of 2023 State Vs. Karan Kumar and Ors., under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagina, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, wherein, the summon was issued against the respondent No.2 and her husband- Karan Kumar vide order dated 10.11.2023), instituted the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the applicant by filling the cheque with forged signature of applicant in the Court of learned ACJM, Ramnagar, District Nainital. The said case was registered as Criminal Case No.662 of 2024 Komal Devi Vs. Lakshmi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned ACJM took cognizance on the basis of statement of respondent No.2-complainant under the Section 200 Cr.P.C. under Section 138 of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance/summoning order dated 27.08.2024 as well as the launching of the complaint case, the applicant is before this Court. 4. He further submits that one of the cheques was also misused by respondent No.2 and her husband and for which, a Criminal Case No.661 of 2024 Karan Kumar Vs. Lakshmi was filed in the Court of learned ACJM, Ramnagar, District Nainital under Section 138 of the NI Act and summons were issued vide summoning order dated 27.08.2024, which was put to challenge before this Court in C528 No.926 of 2025 Lakshmu Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, wherein, interim 2025:UHC:10674 3 relief was granted vide order dated 27.06.2025 and 21.07.2025. 5. He also contends that the instant proceedings are nothing more than the exercise done by respondent No.2 to counter applicant’s criminal case and to avoid the liability of paying the amount, which the respondent No.2 and her husband deceitfully usurped from her husband. 6. He further contends 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 202(2) Cr.P.C., in spite of the fact that admittedly the applicant is the permanent resident of Village Jaftanagar, P.S. Rehad, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court Below taking cognizance. 7. 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 submission 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 2025:UHC:10674 4 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. 8. 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 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. 9. In view of the above, the present C528 application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed in-limine. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.12.2025 PN