Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6517 (UTT)

MOHIT RASTOGI v. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

C528/1164/2026 · 2026-06-03

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No. 1164 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash/set-aside the summoning order dated 11.03.2026 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6879 of 2025, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun, District Dehradun. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has already paid the amount, which is mentioned in the cheque and the cheque was issued only for security purposes, but, despite receiving the whole amount, as mentioned in the cheque, this complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 9. Considering the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, after applying its judicial mind, has rightly summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Furthermore, it is a settled law that the cheque issued even for security purposes attracts the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sripati Singh (since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2022) 18 SCC 614. 10. The court concerned has considered & discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned cannot be faulted. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned summoning order. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, it is always open for the applicant to raise all his grievances before the learned Trial Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 03.06.2026 Ujjwal