HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Case (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.317 of 2024 Satyavir Yadav --Applicant Versus State and another --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Dy.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This C482 application is filed against the cognizance/summoning order dated 27.04.2023 passed by learned Additional CJM, Kashipur, U.S. Nagar in Crl. Case No.971 of 2023 (Ram Naresh Singh v. Laturi Singh). 3. Facts in brief are that the applicant in order to repay his debt issued cheque no.849443 dated 15.02.2023 of Rs.6,65,000/- to the respondent no.2; when the said cheque was presented by complainant to his bank, the same was dishonoured; information about the same was given by respondent no.2 to the applicant through his advocate by registered notice on 22.03.20223 but even after lapse of period of notice, the payment of cheque was not made. Hence the complaint was filed. 4. The Trial Court accordingly summoned the applicant to face the trial u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. Challenging the order dated 27.04.2023, present C482 application has been filed. 1 5. According to the applicant, there was some money transaction between the parties and applicant had borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- from the respondent for which an agreement also took place. Out of this, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was also paid to the respondent no.2 but the respondent no.2 just to take undue benefit, has manipulated the figure as Rs.6,65,000/- instead of Rs.65,000/- and presented the cheque for payment which was dishonoured with the remark of ‘insufficient funds’. 6. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be appreciated here at this stage for the simple reason that the question as to what was the actual amount of cheque can only be examined before the trial Court after the evidence is led by the parties. This Court is not supposed to conduct an enquiry to examine the veracity of the disputed questions of fact as it is the trial Court which can best discharge this duty. The High Court is not supposed to enter into factual controversies. 7. Accordingly, there is no force in this C482 application and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Interim order dated 28.02.2024 is hereby vacated. 9. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.08.2025 AK 2