Meharban Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1235 of 2015, Balbeer Vs. Meharban under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

It appears from the record that respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, on 22.05.2015, in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. After inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, vide order dated 18.06.2015, the petitioner was summoned to answer the accusations under Section 138 of the Act. This order is impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner had no liability to pay any amount to respondent no.2. Despite that, matter has been settled by the petitioner with respondent no.2. But respondent no.2 is still pursuing the matter, therefore, it is argued that summoning order may be quashed.

This case reveals very peculiar picture of the litigation. The summoning order was passed on 18.06.2015 and it is being questioned today on the ground that though matter has been settled in the year 2019 but still respondent no.2 is pursuing the matter. If some thing has happened in the year 2019, how could the summoning order be faulted for that reason and if parties have amicably settled the dispute, they can very well file application before the court concerned.

Apart from that, order sheets of the case have been filed by the petitioner himself, which reveals that it is the petitioner, who is delaying the trial of the case. The statement of the petitioner in the case was recorded on 03.09.2016. In the evidence, on 29.11.2016, affidavits were filed but the petitioner was absent on that day. Warrants were issued against the petitioner. He filed an application to recall the warrant which was once allowed on 02.01.2018. On the next date, i.e. 17.01.2018, another adjournment application was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed with the costs of Rs.500/-. The court categorically recorded that no more opportunity would be given to the petitioner. The trial proceeded. On 21.02.2018, when adjournment application alongwith exemption was filed by the petitioner, it is the only exemption, which was allowed and the court closed the evidence on that day and listed the matter for examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code. But on the next date i.e. on 15.03.2018, the petitioner was absent and he continued to remain absent since then. Non bailable warrant has been issued against him repeatedly. On the last date i.e. on 19.03.2019, when the petitioner was absent, non bailable warrants as well as notices to the sureties were issued against him. These all reveals that, in fact, it is the petitioner, who is abusing the process of law.

The summoning order which was passed in the case in the year 2015 is being challenged on the ground that matter has been settled in the year 2019, but neither the settlement has ever been recorded in the court below nor the instant petition is filed on the basis of any amicable settlement between the parties. The order sheets of the case, of which, certain references have been made, hereinabove, categorically reveals that the petitioner in one way or other is not allowing the trial to proceed further. In this pursuit, it appears that he took a chance to approach this Court. It is noting but abuse of the process of the Court.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in the summoning order and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the Code is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). Petitioner shall deposit this costs, within the next two weeks, with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority at Nainital.