Sl. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.1009 of 2023 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. This C482 application is filed against the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Crl. Complaint Case No.671 of 2021, M/s Hotel Rishikesh Inn v. M/s Haridwar Club Pvt. Ltd. 4. Facts in brief are that complainant firm is a partnership firm. A registered lease deed for a period of three years had been executed between the complainant firm and the applicants, the monthly rent whereof was fixed as Rs.9.00 lakh to be paid to the complainant by the applicants. The amount of rent due towards the applicants rose to Rs.36.00 lakh in lieu whereof cheque no.488264 amounting to Rs.9,94,500/- dated 1.4.2021 was issued by the applicants. When the complainant presented the said cheque for payment, the same was dishonoured by the bank with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. Legal notice dated 26.05.2021 was given and demand was made but even after receipt of notice, cheque amount was not paid. Hence the complaint was filed. 5. The complainant in support of complaint filed original cheque, deposit slip, bank memo, legal notice etc. His affidavit u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was also filed. The complaint was also filed in view of the authority in ‘In Re cognizance for extension of limitation’. Having regard to the facts, the Court concerned summoned the applicants to face trial u/s 138 r/w Section 141 of the N.I. Act by order dated 10.08.2021. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The court while summoning the applicants has fully gone through the facts of the case. In my opinion, this is not a case of interference. Moreover, the issues raised herein are disputed questions which can be challenged before the competent court of law. Lastly, this case does not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and hence the Court below has committed an error of law in summoning the accused without conducting a preliminary enquiry as envisaged u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 8. First and foremost, this argument has not been pleaded by the applicant anywhere in his C482 application. Secondly, even if the oral submission of the applicant’s counsel is believed, then also, the examination u/s 200 Cr.P.C. besides examining the relevant documents produced by the complainant in support of his case, I am of the view that the Magistrate conducted the preliminary enquiry before summoning the accused as is mandated u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Hence this argument is outrightly rejected. 9. C482 application fails and the same is dismissed. Interim order dated 23.05.2023 is vacated. 10. Inform the Court below. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.07.2025 R.Dang