2026:UHC:3254 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.847 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.345 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 3. Respondent no.2 instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging dishonour of a cheque for a sum of ₹2,00,000/-. Upon perusal of the complaint, accompanying documents and the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed and accordingly took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque in question was never issued in favour of respondent no.2 and that the same was part of certain signed cheques which had been misplaced. It is further contended that there are material inconsistencies between the statutory legal notice and the averments made in the complaint, particularly with regard to the introduction of allegations of cheating at a later stage. It is also argued that the allegation of issuance of multiple 2026:UHC:3254 cheques of the same amount for a single loan transaction is inherently improbable, thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant pertain to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. at this stage. The defence taken by the applicant, namely that the cheque was misplaced or not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, is a matter of evidence which can be duly examined during trial. At the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out, and meticulous examination of defence pleas is neither warranted nor permissible. It is further evident that the complaint discloses all the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including issuance of cheque, its presentation within the prescribed period, dishonour, and failure to make payment despite statutory notice. Minor discrepancies, if any, between the legal notice and the complaint do not demolish the substratum of the prosecution case at the threshold, particularly when the core allegations remain intact. The argument regarding improbability of issuance of multiple cheques for the same amount is also a matter of factual appreciation and cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at the inception. Such aspects require evaluation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, which falls within the domain of the trial 2026:UHC:3254 court. 6. In view of the settled legal position that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit one for interference. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.04.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9 87446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.30 13:21:58 +05'30'