Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 552 (UTT)

CHAHI RAM v. SAROJ

2010-08-04

DHARAM VEER

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 27.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Case No. 2044 of 2009, Smt. Saroj v. Chahi Ram, u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act) as well as the judgment and order dated 2.3.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IV, Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the entire material available on file. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Saroj filed a complaint against the applicant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, stating therein that the husband of the complainant and the applicant were having good relations with each other and, on the basis of this, the applicant asked for Rs. 2,40,000/- from her husband. As per the instruction of her husband, she gave Rs. 2,40,000/- to the applicant and in lieu of that amount, the applicant issued a post-dated cheque bearing no. 675369 to the complainant. It is alleged that on 4.4.2009 the complainant presented the said cheque in the bank but the same got dishonoured with the endorsement “Exceeds Arranged” about which she came to know from the bank on 9.4.2009. Thereafter, on 28.4.2009, the complainant sent a registered notice through his counsel to the applicant requesting to refund the amount within 15 days, which was also served on the applicant. But even after service of the notice, the applicant did not refund the money of the complainant. With these averments, respondent Smt. Saroj filed a complaint against the applicant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, which was registered as Case No. 2044 of 2009 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant in support of her case got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. she filed copies of original 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 27.6.2009, took the cognizance of the offence and also summoned the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.6.2009, the applicant preferred a revision before Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC IV, Haridwar, which also was dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide his order dated 27.6.2009, took the cognizance of the offence and also summoned the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.6.2009, the applicant preferred a revision before Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC IV, Haridwar, which also was dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2010. Against the said orders dated 27.6.2009 and 2.3.2010, the applicant has preferred he present C482 application before this Court. 4. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Smt. Saroj 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 under Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the applicant. 5. 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 under section 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. I am of the view that the applicant 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. 6. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine.