2026:UHC:2495 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.584 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the applicant. 2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 29.01.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 934 of 2024, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the complaint has been instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance and summoned the applicant without proper application of mind. It is further submitted that the cheque in question does not pertain to the bank account of the applicant or his firm, nor has it been issued by the applicant in any capacity. It is also argued that the cheque allegedly dishonoured stands in the name of one Tosif and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the applicant under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 4. Per contra, the record reveals that the learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the complaint, supporting documents and material placed on record, has found prima facie grounds to proceed against the applicant and accordingly issued the summoning order. 5. The Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into disputed questions of fact or to evaluate the defence of the 2026:UHC:2495 accused. The pleas raised by the applicant, particularly with regard to the ownership of the cheque, the account on which it was drawn, and the capacity in which it was allegedly issued, are essentially matters of evidence which require adjudication upon appreciation of material to be led before the trial court. Whether the cheque belongs to the applicant, whether it was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, and whether the applicant can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are all questions which cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Such issues necessarily involve factual determination and cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The summoning order does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity requiring interference by this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the impugned summoning order or the proceedings arising therefrom. The criminal misc. application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, it is observed that the applicant shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas, both factual and legal, before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage, and the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein. (Alok Mahra, J.) 08.04.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536544 5e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C 5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.09 10:06:06 +05'30'