2025:UHC:2634 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 613 of 2024 08th April, 2025 Islam …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd Safdar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C482 application has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned summoning order dated 20.10.2022 along with entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.7143 of 2022, Bhupal Singh Negi Vs. Islam, under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 1881, registered with Police Station Vasant Vihar, Dehradun, pending in the court of learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that respondent no.2 moved a complaint before learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun alleging that the applicant with his co- conspirators entered into an agreement of land of Khasra No.314 Ka 770 sq. mt. executed by Vikas Kumar and Irfan Ali as attorney holder of Maya Adwani for sale consideration of ₹75,00,000/- and on 28.04.2022 and 29.04.2022 the accused got two sale deed through one Maya Adwani in favour of Parvinder Preet Singh and Rajesh Yadav Vasudev and the applicant and other received ₹44,49,000/- from complainant. Thereafter regarding the said dispute a complaint was lodged by complainant on which applicant issued a post dated Cheque No.917805 of ₹7,00,000/- which was dishonoured on which notices were issued, but the amount was not paid. Trial Court on the basis of the said complaint summoned the complainant to face trial vide order dated 20.10.2022. 2025:UHC:2634 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime as prior to present complaint the complainant lodged an F.I.R. on 31.12.2022 in which allegations were made against the applicant, but there is no mention of issuance of any cheque. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that respondent no.2 moved a complaint before police and in the name of interrogation the applicant was called by the Police to create pressure upon him and to rope him in the false case of issuance of cheque. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and, prima facie, commission of offence is made out against him. The learned trial court summoned the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act after examining the material before it. There is no illegality in the summoning order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I find no irregularity or illegality in the impugned summoning order. Prima Facie, this Court is of the view that commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and he was legally summoned. Thus, no interference is required in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the C482 application fails and is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.04.2025 SK