2026:UHC:2811 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.1678 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 28.01.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 950 of 2024, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Almora. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was formerly a Director of Goludev Pvt. Ltd. and had resigned from the said position on 02.03.2018. It is contended that the cheque in question, which is alleged to have been dishonoured, was issued on 10.07.2024, much after the applicant had ceased to be associated with the company. On this basis, it is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and cannot be held liable for the alleged offence. 4. Per contra, upon perusal of the material brought on record, it is evident that the cheque in question bears the signature of the applicant. The learned Magistrate, after considering the contents of the complaint, supporting documents, and other material, has recorded satisfaction regarding the existence of a prima facie case and has accordingly issued the summoning order. 5. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and is not expected to delve into disputed questions of fact or to adjudicate 2026:UHC:2811 upon the defence of the accused. The contentions raised on behalf of the applicant, particularly regarding his resignation from the Directorship, the nature of the transaction, and the circumstances under which the cheque was issued, are matters which require evidence and can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. The questions as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and whether the applicant can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involve factual determination, which cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned summoning order warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 18.04.2026 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: 2026.04.18 17:39:12 +05'30'