2026:UHC:3950 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 C482 No.1008 of 2023 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Hitesh Chandra Sanwal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No.670 of 2021, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the procedure prescribed under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has not been followed by learned Magistrate prior to passing the summoning order and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint, statements of the complainant and the documents brought on record, formed a prima facie satisfaction regarding commission of the offence and thereafter passed the summoning order. It is further submitted that a petition being C-482 No.1009 of 2023, filed by the present applicant between the same parties in relation to another cheque arising out of the same lease deed, has already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Hon’ble Apex Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, In Re, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 116, has held that for the purpose of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant may 2026:UHC:3950 be permitted to be taken on affidavit and, in appropriate cases, the Magistrate may restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting upon examination of witnesses. 6. In the present case, from the perusal of the impugned summoning order, it transpires that the learned Magistrate has considered the averments made in the complaint, affidavit and documents filed in support thereof and, upon being satisfied that a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out, proceeded to summon the applicant. At the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to ascertain whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not warranted. 7. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The pleas raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact, which can appropriately be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial. 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, applicant shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 20.05.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dd db7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987 446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.20 17:43:22 +05'30'