2026:UHC:2595 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 623 of 2026 08th April, 2026 Yogesh Agrawal ………Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another .…..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ashok Tobria through Video Conferencing along with Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral) Present application under Section C-528 has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2025, whereby the revision was dismissed and the summoning order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 1014 of 2023, has been affirmed, summoning the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and respondent no.2 are known to each other; that, the respondent presently resides at Brgatitin, Madird, Spain and possesses special expertise in Yoga and Vedic spirituality; that, the respondent/complainant had allegedly invested an amount of ₹2,70,00,000/- (Euro 3,00,000/-) for the purpose of establishing a Vedic township project 2026:UHC:2595 2 in Spain (Europe); that, in relation to the said transaction, an undertaking dated 29.07.2023 was executed regarding repayment of the said amount. 3. Learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the said undertaking, a cheque bearing No. 000188 dated 31.08.2023 amounting to ₹1,50,00,000/, drawn by the applicant, was presented by the respondent before his bank, which came to be dishonoured with the remark “Payment Stopped by Drawer.” It is further submitted that the respondent thereafter issued a statutory legal notice to the applicant, which was duly served and replied to by the applicant. However, since no payment was made within the stipulated period, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the N.I. Act’), which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1014 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh; that, learned trial court, after considering the material on record, passed the summoning order dated 29.11.2023 against the applicant; that, feeling aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 07.03.2026. Hence, the present application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the entire criminal proceedings are unsustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the cheque in question was issued only towards an advance payment and mere issuance or handing over of a cheque does not, by itself, fasten any criminal 2026:UHC:2595 3 liability upon the applicant, particularly when such cheque is issued as advance towards a proposed transaction. It is contended that liability would arise only upon fulfilment of the underlying contractual obligations, which in the present case have admittedly remained unperformed. It is further submitted that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed with mala fide intent solely to harass the applicant and to exert pressure upon him to negotiate on the complainant’s terms. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that a careful reading of the undertaking dated 29.07.2023 reveals three significant aspects: (i) firstly, the undertaking records that the applicant was to pay or invest an initial amount in the project as an advance in order to take responsibility for implementation of the project and to oversee its day-to-day operations. This indicates that the applicant was required to make an advance investment to participate in the project. (ii) secondly, the undertaking records that an amount of Euro 3,00,000/- had been paid by the respondent no.2 on behalf of the applicant in relation to the project. According to learned counsel, this indicates that at the relevant time the respondent himself had not independently invested the said amount in the project. (iii) thirdly, the undertaking clearly stipulates that the detailed terms and conditions were to be mutually decided at a later stage and that a formal agreement between the parties would subsequently be executed, which would form part and parcel of the 2026:UHC:2595 4 undertaking. However, till date no such agreement has been executed between the parties. Thus, according to learned counsel, the conditions contemplated in the undertaking have not been fulfilled and the cheques in question were issued merely as security, and therefore no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out against the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the cheque in question was issued solely as an advance to facilitate participation in the proposed project and since the conditions stipulated in the undertaking were never fulfilled, no legally enforceable debt or liability accrued against the applicant. It is further submitted that the revisional court erred in law while upholding the summoning order passed by the trial court in a mechanical manner without properly appreciating the nature of the transaction. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the question whether post-dated cheques issued as advance payment pursuant to purchase orders could be regarded as having been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a cheque is issued as advance payment for purchase of goods and the purchase order is subsequently not carried to its logical conclusion, either due to cancellation or 2026:UHC:2595 5 otherwise, and the goods for which the order was placed are not supplied, such cheque cannot be said to have been issued towards an existing legally enforceable debt or liability, and therefore dishonour of such cheque would not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submit that the applicant had agreed to establish a Vedic township project in Spain (Europe) in collaboration with the respondent. It is submitted that on the assurance of the applicant, respondent no.2 invested an amount of ₹2,70,00,000/- (Euro 3,00,000/-) on behalf of the applicant; that, against repayment of the said amount, the applicant executed an undertaking dated 29.07.2023 in favour of respondent no.2; that, as per the undertaking, the amount paid by respondent no.2 was towards advance payment in the project to enable the applicant to undertake responsibility for implementation of the project and to manage its day-to-day affairs. It is further submitted that the undertaking also records that the detailed terms and conditions were to be mutually decided and incorporated in a formal agreement to be executed subsequently, which would form part and parcel of the said undertaking. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the applicant and respondent no.2 were acquainted 2026:UHC:2595 6 with each other and had mutually agreed to undertake a project for establishing a Vedic township in Spain. It also emerges from the record that respondent no.2 allegedly invested an amount of ₹2,70,00,000/- (Euro 3,00,000/-) in connection with the said project and, towards the repayment of the said amount, the applicant executed an undertaking dated 29.07.2023 in favour of respondent no.2. 9. From the said undertaking dated 29.07.2023, it is apparently clear that the applicant acknowledged the payment made by respondent no.2 in respect of the proposed project and further issued two cheques bearing nos.000188 and 000189 dated 31.08.2023 for an amount of ₹1,50,00,000/- each in favour of respondent no.2 drawer on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Delhi; that, the said cheque, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured by the bank with the remark “payment stopped by drawer”. Thereafter, respondent no.2 issued a statutory legal notice to the applicant demanding payment of the cheque amount. Despite service of the notice and submission of reply thereto, the applicant failed to make payment within the stipulated period, which constrained respondent no.2 to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh. 10. The learned trial court, after considering the complaint, the affidavit of the complainant and the documents placed on record, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant and accordingly summoned the applicant under Section 2026:UHC:2595 7 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide order dated 29.11.2023. The applicant challenged the said summoning order by filing Criminal Revision No.28 of 2025, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, after examining the legality and propriety of the order passed by the trial court, dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2026. 11. The principal contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheques in question were issued merely as an advance/security cheque in connection with a proposed business venture and since the underlying contractual obligations were not fulfilled and no formal agreement was executed between the parties, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against the applicant. Thus, according to the applicant, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted. 12. This Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission at this stage. A perusal of the undertaking dated 29.07.2023, which is admitted by the applicant and was handed over across the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant, clearly reveals that the applicant had issued two cheques in favour of respondent no. 2/complainant with an undertaking that, ‘in the event the applicant pays, transfers, or remits a sum of Euro 3,00,000/- to the complainant before the due dates of the cheques, the said cheques would be returned to the applicant’. However, the applicant has failed to pay 2026:UHC:2595 8 the aforesaid amount of Euro 3,00,000/- to respondent no. 2/complainant. Consequently, in terms of the undertaking dated 29.07.2023 executed between the parties, the complainant became entitled to present the cheques with effect from 31.08.2023. 13. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning, the court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the complaint and the supporting material placed on record. In the present case, the complaint discloses that the applicant issued the cheque in question, the cheque was dishonoured upon presentation, statutory notice was issued and served upon the applicant, and despite service of notice, the payment was not made within the prescribed period. These facts prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. is of no assistance to the applicant at this stage. In the present case, a subsisting liability is prima facie made out, inasmuch as, as per the undertaking dated 29.07.2023 executed between the applicant and the complainant, the cheques were issued with a stipulation that the same would be returned to the applicant only upon payment, transfer, or remittance of Euro 3,00,000/- to the complainant on or before 31.08.2023. It is trite law that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash 2026:UHC:2595 9 criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Where the complaint discloses the commission of an offence and the proceedings are otherwise in accordance with law, the same ought not to be interdicted at the threshold. 15. In the present case, this Court finds that the learned trial court had passed the summoning order after due consideration of the material on record and the learned revisional court has also examined the matter and found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial court. No ground is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 16. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. 18. The copy of the undertaking dated 29.07.2023, as produced by the applicant before the Court, is taken on record. The Registry is directed to paginate the same in accordance with the record. ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 0 8 .0 4 .20 2 6 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b , postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.04 12:25:47 +05'30'