Shameem Ahmed vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 25.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Case No. 648 of 2006, Sandeep Sharma v. Shameem Ahmed, u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act).

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Sandeep Sharma (respondent No. 3) filed a complaint against the applicant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, stating therein that the complainant was well known to the applicant from very long time and the applicant had purchased a vehicle TATA 407 from the complainant in the month of December and for the same the deal between the parties was fixed in Rs. 2,60,000/-. Out of the total amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-, the applicant had given him Rs. 1,40,000/- and had assured him to give rest of the amount within two months. It is alleged that after expiry of the stipulated time, when the complainant asked for his money, the applicant tried to linger on his payment on one pretext or other. After requesting several times, ultimately, the applicant gave him a cheque bearing No. 0355141 dated 2.9.2005 amounting Rs. 1,20,000/-, payable at Oriental Bank of Commerce, to the complainant. It is alleged that on 2.2.2006 when the complainant presented the said cheque in the bank, the same was dishonoured and was returned to the complainant by the bank on 7.2.2006 with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter the complainant sent a registered notice through his counsel to the applicant requesting to refund the amount within 15 days. It is further alleged that even after service of the notice on the applicant, the applicant has not paid the amount to the complainant. With these averments, Sandeep Sharma, filed a complaint against the applicant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee on 25.3.2006, which was registered as Case No. 648 of 2006 u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant in support of his case got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. he filed the copy of cheque, deposit slip, memorandum slip, receipt of registry and notice. After hearing learned Counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide his order dated 25.3.2006, took the cognizance against the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 25.3.2006, the applicant has preferred the present Code 482 application before this Court.

From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Sandeep Sharma recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case u/s 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the applicant.

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., this 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 and the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence, I am of the view that the applicant 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, there is no force in the application. The Code 482application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 15.7.2006 stands vacated.