2025:UHC:4278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 15th May, 2025 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 215 of 2020 Vinod Gautam …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Verma, No. 2 Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, Vinod Gautam, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 402 of 2018 titled Vishal Vats vs. Vinod Gautam, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant further prays for quashing the entire proceedings of the said complaint case. 2. As per the FIR, the genesis of the criminal proceedings traces back to a private complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, Vishal Vats, wherein he alleged that certain cheques and stamp papers belonging to him were lost and subsequently misused by the applicant to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 1 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4278 this basis, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicant on 22.10.2019. The applicant was never taken into custody in relation to this complaint, and the matter remains at the stage of summoning and pre-trial. 3. According to the applicant, he is the proprietor of M/s S.R. Jewellers, Ludhiana, and had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the complainant, Respondent No. 2, in August 2016. Upon repeated demands, the respondent is alleged to have issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 4.5 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs, which were dishonoured upon presentation. Legal notices were issued, and subsequently, the applicant filed two separate complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Following this, the respondent allegedly filed a retaliatory complaint in Haridwar, asserting that the cheques in question were lost and had been misused by the applicant. This complaint led to the summoning order now under challenge. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 are mala fide and retaliatory, having been instituted only after the applicant lodged complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is urged that the complaint alleging misuse of lost cheques is a fabricated counterblast designed to derail bona fide legal action. The applicant, a jeweller by profession, had extended a friendly loan of ₹7.5 lakhs to the complainant, which was acknowledged through the issuance of two cheques. Upon dishonour of the said cheques, statutory notices were served, followed by the initiation of appropriate proceedings before the competent court in Ludhiana. 2 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4278 6. It is further argued that the impugned summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner, without due judicial application of mind, and that the complaint on its face does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 are not only retaliatory in nature but were also strategically timed to frustrate the applicant’s recourse to legal remedies under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. It is pointed out that the complaint at Haridwar, alleging that the cheques were lost and later misused, was instituted only after the complainant had been summoned in the proceedings initiated by the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act. 9. This sequence of events, it is urged, suggests a calculated misuse of the criminal justice system for collateral objectives. The applicant maintains that the controversy pertains to a financial transaction and, even if the allegations are accepted at face value, they do not satisfy the essential elements of mens rea or fraudulent intent necessary to constitute offences under the Indian Penal Code. Continuation of the present proceedings, in such circumstances, is contended to be an abuse of process. 10. It is further argued that the impugned complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The dispute, at best, is of a civil nature, concerning the recovery of money. The issuance of cheques, their dishonour, and subsequent NI Act proceedings point to a commercial transaction rather than any criminal intent. According to the applicant, the summoning order was passed mechanically without proper judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the 3 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4278 continuation of the present proceedings would cause undue harassment and serve no real purpose. 11. Learned counsels for the State and Respondent No. 2 oppose the application, arguing that the complaint before the Magistrate is supported by documentary evidence, including prior police reports lodged in July and August 2017, reporting the loss of the disputed cheques. Respondent No. 2 denies ever borrowing money from the applicant and claims the cheques were misused after being fraudulently obtained. It is pointed out that detailed replies were sent to the legal notices under the NI Act, clearly denying liability and asserting misuse, thereby disclosing a clear case of dishonest conduct by the applicant. 12. It is further submitted that the complaint discloses a prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, and the Magistrate rightly took cognisance after examining the material and the police report under Section 202 Cr. P.C. The pending NI Act proceedings do not preclude the filing of a separate criminal complaint under IPC as both are based on distinct allegations. There is no procedural or legal infirmity in the summoning order, and no grounds exist to invoke the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The application, it is argued, deserves dismissal. 13. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a well-settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where the ends of justice so demand. The power to quash criminal proceedings is not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the behest of an accused unless the 4 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4278 complaint on its face fails to disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 14. In the present case, the factual scenario reflects that the genesis of the dispute lies in financial transactions between the applicant and the complainant. The applicant has unequivocally asserted that he had advanced a friendly loan to the complainant. Inacknowledgement of the same, the complainant had issued two cheques which were subsequently dishonoured. 15. Legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were sent, and cases were instituted in the court at Ludhiana. Subsequently, the complainant/respondent No. 2 initiated a complaint case in Haridwar, asserting that the cheques in question were never issued by him and had been lost much earlier, for which police reports and an affidavit had already been filed, indicating the loss of said cheques. Further, the complaint filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC is based on allegations of forgery, cheating, and fraudulent use of documents. 16. Whether the applicant dishonestly used cheques which he knew were not lawfully obtained, and whether any intention to cheat was present from the inception, are questions of fact. The complainant has, in his affidavit and annexures, referred to missing reports lodged well before the issuance of the legal notice by the applicant. These reports, although not determinative by themselves, prima facie lend credence to the complainant’s claim that the cheques were reported as lost much before they were used. 17. Moreover, the police inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted, and a report was submitted to the 5 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4278 Magistrate. Upon due consideration of the contents of the complaint, supporting documents, and the police report, the learned Magistrate found it fit to issue process under the relevant sections of the IPC. It is not the case that the Magistrate has acted in a mechanical manner or without any application of mind. The summoning order reflects that the learned court below considered the material on record before exercising jurisdiction. 18. It is also pertinent to note that the existence of a parallel proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not automatically bar the lodging of a criminal complaint under the IPC if distinct offences are alleged. A civil liability or a statutory offence under the NI Act does not preclude the lodging of a complaint under IPC if an independent cause of action exists, disclosing ingredients of cheating or forgery. The allegation that the IPC complaint is a “counter-blast” to the Section 138 NI Act cases is a matter of inference that requires deeper examination and cannot be summarily accepted as grounds forquashing the proceedings. 19. The applicant has emphasized that he is the holder in due course of the cheques and has a presumptive right under the NI Act. While such a presumption exists, it is rebuttable and subject to proof during trial. If the complainant succeeds in proving that the cheques were never issued voluntarily, or that they were lost and misused, it may tilt the scales in his favour. Likewise, if the applicant establishes bona fides and the legitimacy of the transaction, the criminal complaint may fall flat. Thus, both versions need to be tested in the crucible of trial. 20. Furthermore, the question whether the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC, namely, deception, fraudulent inducement, and wrongful gain, are made out, is a matter 6 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4278 which can only be determined after recording of evidence. At this stage, the allegations in the complaint cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever conclude that there is sufficient ground to proceed. ORDER In light of the above discussion, this Court does not find sufficient ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned summoning order or the proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 402 of 2018. The issues raised by the applicant are largely factual and can be appropriately adjudicated during trial. The applicant shall, however, be at liberty to raise all permissible legal and factual defences before the trial court in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. It is clarified that any observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter pending before the trial court ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 15.05.2025 SB 7 Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J.