Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 687 (UTT)

Swarn Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2010-09-16

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2010
Judgment Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1 and Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. This Criminal Misc. application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order dated 17.06.2006 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, in Complaint Case No. 895 of 2007 Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Swarn Singh under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the court below has taken cognizance of a complaint made by the complainant/respondent no.2 and issued summons against the applicant. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- As per the averment made in the FIR, respondent no.2 gave an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the applicant on 23.9.2005 and consequently on 23.10.2005 the applicant drawn a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- bearing no. 539675 State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar Dehradun in favour of respondent no.2. As per the averments given by the counsel for respondent no.2/complainant the cheque was duly presented before the Bank on 24.4.2006 in time but the same was dishonored for the reasons assigned “insufficient funds” in the account of the applicant. Thereafter a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act and summon was issued to the applicant by the learned Magistrate. 4. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is two folds: firstly that the applicant has not complied with the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 138 of the Act inasmuch as it was not received by the applicant. The complainant however states that all efforts were made to serve the notice on the applicant but he refused to receive the registered notice and the same was returned with the endorsement of “refusal” of the postal authorities. Therefore, this technical objection is not available with the applicant. Without expressing any opinion on this aspect, this Court is of the view, that no interference is called for in this case by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Another issue raised by the applicant is regarding tempering with the dates. Leaned counsel for the complainant states that the Bank had no objection on this aspect (alleged tempering), moreover this issue can only be determined by the trial court. Leaned counsel for the complainant states that the Bank had no objection on this aspect (alleged tempering), moreover this issue can only be determined by the trial court. Consequently, there is no scope for this Court to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The present C-482 application is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 5. No order as to costs. 6. Interim order dated 10.1.2008 is also vacated. 7. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.