2025:UHC:3281 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 902 of 2023 30th April, 2025 Shahabuddin ……….Applicant Versus M/s Nanda Construction ………Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shabana, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Milind Raj, learned counsel for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the cognizance and summoning order dated 01.02.2023 in Criminal Case No.32 of 2023, Nanda Construction Bisht Bhawan vs. Shahabuddin, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that respondent lodged a complaint against the applicant with the allegations that respondent was operating a Stone Crusher Plant and had given a large quantity of construction material to the applicant’s company in the year 2020 and during this period, respondent supplied some material to the applicant’s company for which a total amount of Rs.41,40,000/- was due against the applicant, out of which, only Rs.11,16,000/- was paid by the applicant, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.30,24,000/-. Thereafter, on several occasions, respondent requested the applicant to settle the outstanding amount both verbally and through written communication, but the applicant avoided the payment 1 2025:UHC:3281 stating that the matter is still pending with the relevant department. It is further stated in the complaint that later on applicant issued a cheque in connection with the unpaid material and the said cheque was dishonoured, for which Case No.239 of 2021, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. During hearing of the said case, the applicant assured the payment due to the respondent in writing and admitted that he had received goods worth Rs.30,24,000/- from the respondent and that out of this amount Rs.10,00,000/- was paid in cash by the applicant to the respondent and Rs.3,00,000/- was paid via Cheque No.660394 dated 28.11.2022. The cheque was accepted by the respondent, but the remaining amount of Rs.17,24,000/- was still unpaid. It is also stated in the complaint that a new cheque amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- was issued by the applicant to the respondent in order to settle a portion of the outstanding amount. When Cheque No.660394 was deposited by the respondent in the State Bank of India, the same was returned dishonoured with the remark “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the respondent sent a registered notice through his Advocate on 16.12.2022 which was served upon the applicant on 22.12.2022. Even after service of notice, the applicant did not pay the amount of cheque to the respondent. 3. 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 is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that applicant and respondent were 2 2025:UHC:3281 having business relationship and the respondent had supplied the stone grid and stone dust to the applicant, for which, applicant has made payment to the respondent by depositing in the account of the respondent and some amount was paid in cash to the respondent. He further submits that earlier also respondent had filed a false complaint against the applicant and now in order to make pressure upon the applicant, respondent again filed a complaint with the same allegation that cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- was dishonoured which was given by the applicant to the respondent. He also submits that learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that since the complaint was filed at Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, and the applicant is the resident of Post Office Mandawali, Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor, therefore, the applicant was residing outside the limit of territorial jurisdiction of learned trial court and it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to conduct an inquiry as provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C., but no such inquiry was conducted. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant further submits that neither any evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C. nor any inquiry was conducted by the learned trial court thus, the order passed by learned Magistrate is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case. He further submits that learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar has full jurisdiction on the said complaint as the cheque which was dishonoured was of Gopeshwar Branch of State 3 2025:UHC:3281 Bank of India, which comes under his jurisdiction. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has failed to point out a single error in the summoning order passed by learned trial court. Prima facie offence alleged against the applicant is made out and he has been rightly summoned. From the summoning order impugned it is well reflected that the applicant has been summoned by the learned trial court on the basis of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant/company and documentary evidence produced by him. That is the sufficient compliance of provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. The argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate is far far-fetched. The “inquiry” contemplated in Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been sufficiently done. Thus no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the present C482 application is dismissed. 8. Interim order dated 11.05.2023 stands vacated. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.04.2025 AK 4