Ritu Raj Khanna vs Anand Singh Aswal

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

By means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the summoning order dated 09.07.2008, further proceedings of the Crl. Complaint Case No. 2349 of 2008 (new No. 3773/08),Naveen Gupta v. Ritu Raj Khanna, u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act) pending in the court of Addl. C.J.M.-I, Dehradun as well as to quash the judgment and order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge/FTC-II, Dehradun in Crl. Revision No. 61/09,Ritu Raj Khanna v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.,.

As per the complaint, the petitioner gave a Cheque No. 672314 dated 5.3.08 for Rs. 1.30 lacs of Punjab & Sindh Bank, Arhat Bazar, Dehradun to the complainant/respondent in lieu of discharge of his liability. When the said cheque was presented in the bank, it was returned on 10.3.2008 with the endorsement by the bank "account freeze by the Bank". On 13.3.2008, the notice was sent by the complainant through his advocate, which was sufficiently served upon the petitioner, however even then the payment of cheque was not made good to the complainant. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 09.4.2008. The complainant/respondent in support of his case filed his own affidavit while in the documentary evidence, he brought on record the original cheque, copy of notice, bank memo and the copy of registered post, before the trial court in support of his case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below proceeded to summon the petitioner u/s 138 of the Act vide order dated 09.07.2008. Against the said order dated 9.7.08, the petitioner preferred a revision which too was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge/FTC-II, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2010. Assailing both the orders and the proceedings of the trial court, this petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below erred in summoning the petitioner. I do not find any force in this argument. In the present case, the cheque was issued on 05.3.2008 and it was deposited in the bank for payment and on 10.03.2008 it was returned by the bank with the endorsement "account freeze by the bank". Thereafter, the notice was issued by the respondent through his advocate to the petitioner on 13.3.2008, which was also duly served upon the petitioner. However, even then the payment was not made to the respondent and ultimately on 09.04.2008, the complaint was filed by the complainant in the court. After appreciating the entire material on record, the trial court summoned the petitioner u/s 138 of the Act on 9.7.2008, against which the petitioner preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the revisional court. After analyzing the entire documentary evidence, I find that the requirement of Section 138 has been made without their being any inordinate delay. Prima facie, the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act is made out against the petitioner at this stage.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the complainant, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, the application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.