2025:UHC:4238 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1037 of 2023 21 May, 2025 Naresh Kumar Gupta & another --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned DAG with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the summoning order dated 26.11.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3496 of 2015, Nazim vs. Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Ltd. & others, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent no.2 under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 stating therein that complainant sells lime, coal and other construction materials in bulk and retail from his establishment situated at Ramnagar Road, Kashipur in the name of Kumaon Trading Company and the accused no.1 in the said complaint, purchased the lime, charcoal and bed material from the complainant in 1 2025:UHC:4238 cash and on credit. In the complaint, it is stated that till 24.06.2015, a sum of Rs.24,76,835/- was due towards accused and to settle this liability, seven different cheques were issued in favour of complainant on different dates. The said cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, for which, complainant sent a legal notice to the accused, but even after service of notice, the accused did not pay the amount under cheque to the complainant. 3. Thereafter, the said complaint of the complainant was registered as Criminal Case No.3496 of 2015, Nazim vs. Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Ltd. & others, in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The trial court on the said complaint took cognizance against the applicants under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and summoned them to face the trial. Challenging the said order of summoning as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3496 of 2015, the applicants are before this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were the Directors of the Shree Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Ltd.; they have no knowledge as to how the respondent no.2 got seven different cheques of the Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Ltd., which were later on returned unpaid for different reasons and they are not the signatory to the cheques-in-dispute. He further submits that complaint of respondent no.2 is not maintainable, as he has clubbed seven different transactions in a single complaint, which is barred under Section 219 Cr.P.C. He also submits that learned Magistrate while summoning the applicants has failed to appreciate this aspect that at the 2 2025:UHC:4238 time, when the alleged offence was committed, whether the applicants were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Hence, the summoning order is bad in the eyes of law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the applicants has raised the serious disputed question of facts before this Court and the same can only be examined during course of trial, thus the present C482 application is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the trial court after appreciating the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and documentary evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicants. 7. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have no knowledge about the issuance of the cheques and even they are not signatory of the cheques-in-dispute is concerned, this Court is of the view that since in the complaint, the Company-Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Ltd. has already been arrayed as an accused with the applicants, who are Directors of the Company, there is no illegality in the complaint as applicants being Directors of the Company, which is arrayed as an accused with the applicants. The learned trial court has not committed any illegality in summoning them to face the trial. The arguments submitted by learned counsel for the applicants require evidence to substantiate which can only be led during trial. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is hereby rejected. 8. The next argument which was made by learned counsel for the applicants that for dishonour of seven cheques, single complaint has been filed also does not 3 2025:UHC:4238 hold any water. The cheques-in-dispute were issued in favour of the complainant by the Company/Directors and all were dishonoured by the bank with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, a single notice has been sent by the complainant to the applicants and the Company to make the payment of the amount under cheque. In this view of the matter, by filing a single complaint, was the correct course availed by the complainant. It is the policy of law to prevent multiplicity of the cases and in this view of the matter, this argument also stands rejected. 9. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is not sustainable at this stage as the same would require evidence to substantiate the said argument. It is made open to the applicants to raise them at the trial. This Court while sitting in the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not enjoined to sift the evidence between the parties and the same can be done only by the trial court. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere in the present C482 application and the same is dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.05.2025 AK 4