2025:UHC:3731 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 462 of 2024 Hira Singh --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: Mr. Sachin Veer Singh, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for respondent. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has challenged the summoning/cognizance order dated 02.02.2024 and order dated 25.09.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, in Criminal Case No.369 of 2021, Deepak Singh Bisht Vs. Hira Singh Negi, as well as the judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Revision No.04 of 2022 Deepak Singh Bisht Vs. Hira Singh Negi and Another, whereby, the said revision was allowed and the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar, Chamoli, was set aside. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent-Hira Singh Negi made allegation in his complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) that being acquaintance with applicant, he had given an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- to the applicant in the year 2020 to invest in order to gain lucrative profit. After sometime, when the respondent demanded his money back, the applicant had given him a security cheque of Punjab National Bank dated 28.06.2021 under his signature, with the assurance of its encashment on its presentation before the Bank. The respondent presented the said cheque at Punjab National Bank, 1 2025:UHC:3731 Branch Gopeshwar, which was returned to him with a remark ‘Fund insufficient’. Then, he presented the said cheque at State Bank of India, Gopeshwar on 31.08.2021, which was again returned. Aggrieved by the said act, respondent sent a Demand Notice/Legal Notice through his advocate demanding the aforesaid amount on 10.09.2021 to the applicant’s address. 3. The aforesaid complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Act was registered as Criminal Case No.369 of 2021 Deepak Singh Bisht Vs. Hira Singh Negi, which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar, at threshold vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 on the ground that the Demand Notice/Legal Notice sent by the respondent was not served adequately/sufficiently on correct address of the applicant, which is in violation in mandate of Section 138 (b) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 06.12.2021, respondent-Deepal Singh Bisht preferred a Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2022 Deepak Singh Bisht Vs. Hira Singh Negi and Another, before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, which was allowed and remanded back to learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar with a direction to make a deeper legal investigation on the matter and pass afresh legal order warranted under law by engaging itself in reconsideration in terms of above analysis, vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2023. 5. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar restored the said Criminal Case No.369 of 2021 Deepak Singh Bisht Vs. Hira Singh Negi, to its original number in compliance of judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Revisional Court, consequent thereto, order dated 25.09.2023 and impugned summoning order dated 02.02.2024 was passed by the 2 2025:UHC:3731 learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar and impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Revisional Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case at hand is glaring example of abuse of process of law, where, the complaint filed by respondent is devoid of mandatory of statutory law and said judgment rendered by learned Revisional Court is also against the provisions of law. The complaint filed by the respondent is completely bogus and fictitious devoid of merit, hence, the impugned judgments and orders are liable to quash in the interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that before filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the mandatory notice as required under Section 138(b) of the Act, has not been issued by respondent to applicant. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the notice has been issued to the applicant under the provision of Section 138 (b) of the Act on 10.09.2021. 9. In reply to this submission of learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the said notice was issued upon the wrong address of the applicant, therefore, the requirement of provision of the Act has not been fulfilled. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire material available on record. The notice, which has been issued by the respondent to applicant, was sent upon the correct address of applicant, which is duly annexed by learned counsel for the applicant itself as Annexure No.2 to the present C482 Application. 3 2025:UHC:3731 The notice was sent by the respondent to the applicant on the same address as mentioned by him in the cause-title/ memo of party of this C482 application. Thus, he cannot submit that this was not sent on correct address. Such attempt of learned counsel for the applicant is nothing but to delay the proceedings of the case and to scuttle it in between. In view of the law laid down in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub- paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- “33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; 33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; 33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; 11. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that, this Court cannot enter into factual aspects of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences. 12. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed. 13. Interim order dated 19.03.2024 stands vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.05.2025 PN 4 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55 c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498 483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.13 10:09:31 +05'30'