Shriniwas Gautam vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present C482 application, applicant has challenged the entire proceedings of Criminal Compliant Case No.461 of 2019 along with summoning order dated 16.08.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital, whereby applicant was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) as well as the Revisional Court’s order dated 27.04.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Criminal Revision No.94 of 2022, by which the summoning order was affirmed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

From perusal of the complaint, it is reflected that Shriniwas Gautam, S/o Kanchan Das (the applicant) had issued a cheque, bearing Cheque No.000015 of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 11.01.2019 to the complainant-respondent with the assurance that as and when the cheque will be submitted before the bank, the same will be encashed.

It is further reflected from the complaint that the cheque was deposited before the banker by the respondent-complainant thrice on different dates, but the same could not have been encashed and finally, when it was submitted for payment for encashment on 29.03.2019, the same was dishonoured by the bank with the remark of “insufficiency of the funds in the account”. Accordingly, notice was issued under the provisions of the Act, which was denied by the applicant to be received on 29.04.2019 and the envelope along with notice was returned to the senders with those endorsement. There is no question of any reply to the notice sent by the respondent-complainant. The complainant left with no option but to file a Criminal Complaint Case No.461 of 2019, in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital on 25.05.2019.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that during course of trial from the evidence of PW1, it is reflected that the cheque was given to one Rajan as security and that has been misused by the complainant for lodging his complaint.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted that from perusal of the complaint, the offence is completely made out against the applicant; trial is under process and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have also been recorded.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit which shall warrant interference in the aforesaid C482 application, for the reason that the complaint discloses the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, the argument which has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is some facts came during the evidence in his favour can only be appreciated by the learned trial court and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not enjoined to appreciate the evidence.

In this view of the matter, there is no force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, the C482 application is hereby dismissed.