2026:UHC:3956 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C5 2 8 / 1 0 7 7 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Ms. Indu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning/cognizance order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 921 of 2022, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the said Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the applicant alleging dishonour of certain cheques issued by him, whereupon the learned trial court proceeded to take cognizance and issued summoning order against the applicant. It is contended that prior to passing of the impugned order, the procedure contemplated under Section 223 of the B.N.S.S. was not duly complied with and the complainant was also not examined on oath before issuance of process. It is further submitted that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of 2026:UHC:3956 judicial mind to the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the service report available on record itself demonstrates that summons were never duly served upon the applicant and despite absence of valid service, the learned trial court proceeded to treat the applicant to be absent and thereafter issued bailable warrants against him vide order dated 07.03.2026. It is submitted that the applicant had no knowledge of the pendency of the complaint proceedings and, therefore, could not appear before the court concerned. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submit that the grounds raised in the present application are misconceived and are not sustainable in law. It is submitted that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate is competent to rely upon affidavit evidence at the pre-summoning stage and personal examination of the complainant is not mandatory in every case. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, wherein it has been held that for the purpose of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant may be permitted to be taken on affidavit and, in appropriate 2026:UHC:3956 cases, the Magistrate may restrict the inquiry to scrutiny of the documents brought on record without insisting upon examination of witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant, in rejoinder, would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to appear before the court concerned and participate in the proceedings. However, it has been prayed that till such appearance, the effect and operation of the bailable warrants dated 07.03.2026 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar be kept in abeyance so as to enable the applicant to appear before the trial court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. 8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the principal grievance raised by the applicant pertains to the alleged non- service of summons and the consequential issuance of bailable warrants by the court concerned. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by granting limited protection to the applicant to enable him to appear before the trial court and participate in the proceedings. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the effect and operation of the bailable warrants dated 07.03.2026 issued against the applicant by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar shall 2026:UHC:3956 remain kept in abeyance only till the next date fixed before the court concerned. 10. The applicant shall positively appear before the learned trial court on the next date fixed and shall cooperate with the proceedings. In the event any application for recall/cancellation of bailable warrants or for grant of bail is moved by the applicant, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. stands disposed of. 12. It is made clear that in the event the applicant fails to appear before the trial court on the date fixed, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 20.05.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004 ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.22 13:49:41 +05'30'