2025:UHC:3358 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1091 of 2024 01 May, 2025 Anjali Tiwari & another --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vishal Kumar Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the summoning order dated 08.08.2022 in Complaint Case No.3970 of 2022, M/s Devarpan Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Anjali Tiwari, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent no.2 lodged a complaint against the applicant with the allegations that on settling the accounts of namkeen, snacks etc. borrowed from the respondent no.2, applicant gave a cheque of Rs.4 lakh on 01.04.2022 in lieu of partial payment of Rs.7,68,042/-, which was dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, respondent no.2 wrote a letter to the applicants requesting for payment, on which, applicant no.1 gave cheque no.000001 dated 17.06.2022 of HDFC Bank, Branch Lalpur amounting to Rs.7,69,042/- and 1 2025:UHC:3358 when the respondent no.2 presented the said cheque in the ICICI Bank, the cheque was dishonoured without payment on 20.06.2022. Thereafter, respondent no.2 sent a registered notice to the applicants through his Advocate on 28.06.2022 but even after service of notice, the applicants did not pay the amount under cheque to the respondent. 3. 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, the applicants are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 had never issued cheque no.000001 towards any liability and the same was given to the complainant as a security cheque. He further submits that respondent no.2 deliberately misused the said cheque which was issued by her as a security cheque. He also submits that the summoning order passed by learned Magistrate is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that learned counsel appearing for the applicants has failed to point out a single error in the summoning order passed by learned trial court. Prima facie offence alleged against the applicants is made out and they have rightly been summoned. Thus, no interference is warranted by this 2 2025:UHC:3358 Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the present C482 application is dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.05.2025 AK 3