2025:UHC:3020 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 516 of 2022 24 April, 2025 Braj Mohan Tewari --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the summoning order dated 05.08.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.4047 of 2019, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1881”). 3. The facts in nutshell are that a criminal case was filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 of the Act before the trial court on 05.08.2019 stating therein that since he was having been friendship with the applicant, applicant demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as loan which he arranged and gave a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- to the applicant in the month of February, 2019. The applicant assured the respondent no.2 that he would return the amount within one month. To re-pay the loan, applicant also gave a cheque bearing no.384357 1 2025:UHC:3020 amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- dated 16.05.2019 drawn in Almora Urban Co-operative Bank, Branch Chowk Bazar, Almora, District Almora. On 26.06.2019, respondent no.2 presented the said cheque in his bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Haldwani which was returned to the respondent no.2 on 28.06.2019 with the remarks of having ‘insufficient funds’. The respondent no.2 then sent a registered notice through his Advocate on 17.07.2019 which was served upon the applicant on 19.07.2019. Even after the service of notice, the applicant did not pay the amount of cheque to the informant. With these averments, complaint was filed. 4. The trial court on the said complaint took cognizance against the applicant under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and summoned him to face the trial. Challenging the said order of summoning the applicant, he is before this Court. 5. It is the case of the applicant that applicant had never given any cheque to the respondent no.2 rather the respondent no.2 has illegally grabbed the cheque. Applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondent no.2 & another for this Count. The said application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora by order dated 15.11.2019 against which the applicant preferred a revision which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Almora on 26.02.2020, whereby the order passed by learned Magistrate was set-aside. Subsequent thereto, on 23.02.2022, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora directed to register the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. 6. The defence taken by the applicant before this 2 2025:UHC:3020 Court cannot be examined in view of the fact that it is a factual dispute. The veracity of the contents of the complaint moved by respondent no.2 under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 will be appreciated by a competent court having jurisdiction over the same. Applicant is free to put up his defence with evidence before the learned trial court. It is trite that the High Court is not supposed to examine the veracity of the contents or to sift the evidence. It has also time and again been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the task of appreciating the evidence should be left open to the trial court where the parties can adduce/produce the evidence in their support. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also failed to point out a single error in the summoning order passed by learned trial court. 8. I am of the view that the offence alleged against the applicant is prima facie made out. Accordingly, I am of the firm opinion that no interference at all is warranted. This C482 application is a gross misuse of powers vested in this Court. The same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Needless to mention that stay order is not operating in this matter. The trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously since the same is pending with effect from the year 2019. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.04.2025 AK 3