( 2025:JHHC:30919 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3017 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3017 of 2021 Md. Kadir @ Md. Quadir Hussain, aged about 54 years, S/o –Md. Ali Jaan, resident of Upper Kulhi, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. –Jharia, Dist. – Dhanbad. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Ajay Jain, aged about 49 years, S/o –Late Mahavir Prasad Jain, Proprietor Shree Hanuman Enterprises 304, 3rd Floor Sunrise Forum, 100 Burdwan Compound, Near Debuka Nursing Home, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. –Lalpur, District –Ranchi. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls, though the opposite party no.2 has put in his appearance through an advocate. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 206 of 2019. ( 2025:JHHC:30919 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3017 of 2021 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner issued a cheque to the complainant and the same was dishonoured. In the cheque dishonour memo, it was mentioned that kindly contact the drawer/drawee bank and please present again. The complainant- opposite party no.2 issued a notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The said notice was received by the petitioner. The petitioner did not pay the cheque amount nor responded to the notice of demand. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case No. 206 of 2019, basing upon the same and the other materials in the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi found prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial of the case is at the stage of defence evidence and the case is next fixed to 26.09.2025. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the banker of the petitioner has intimated the petitioner that the cheque in question has not been used as yet. It is then submitted that the cheque was never produced before the concerned bank, hence it is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi has committed a gross error by finding prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and passing the summoning order. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. ( 2025:JHHC:30919 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3017 of 2021 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that whether or not the cheque was presented is a question of fact and at best these same is the defence of the petitioner, which can be adjudicated by the petitioner during the trial and for the same evidence is required to be recorded but prima facie the cheque return memo goes to show that the cheque was presented. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the only contention of the petitioner is that the cheque was never presented by the complainant in the bank for payment of the money mentioned in the cheque. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same is a defence which being a question of disputed fact, cannot be considered by this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the defence of any accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused person, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court. ( 2025:JHHC:30919 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3017 of 2021 8. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with, as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 9. In the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1029, para -11 of which reads as under:- “11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12:09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self- destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.”( Emphasis Supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the defence of an accused person of a case cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces evidence in the case. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner received the demand notice but did not reply to the same by contending that since the cheque was never presented ( 2025:JHHC:30919 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3017 of 2021 before the bank and advising the complainant to deposit the cheque in the bank. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-