Uttarakhand High Court
Sompal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 14 February, 2020
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: N.S. Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 2234 of 2019
Sompal Singh ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ......Respondents
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. SK Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 2.
Judgment reserved on; 19.12.2019
Judgment delivered on 14.02.2020
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
The accused applicant has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 30.03.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 303 of 2016 as well as the entire proceedings of the said complaint case. Applicant has also prayed to quash the judgment and order dated 17.08.2019, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2019, preferred against the order dated 30.03.2016.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 filed a complaint stating that the accused applicant borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,90,000/- and gave him a post-dated 2 cheque towards the repayment of this loan amount. However, when the complainant presented the said cheque in the bank for encashment on the due date, it was dishonoured with the endorsement "insufficient fund". Thereafter the complainant gave legal notice, through his Advocate, to the accused applicant. Though the accused applicant replied to the said notice, but did not pay the demand money. Consequently, the complainant/respondent no. 2 lodged the complaint.
3. The learned Magistrate, after recording evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the accused applicant, vide order dated 30.03.2016, to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused applicant challenged the order dated 30.03.2016 by filing Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2019. The said revision was also rejected vide order dated 17.08.2019. Feeling aggrieved, accused applicant has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenging the aforementioned orders.
4. The main ground of challenge of the accused applicant is that the son of the complainant and the son of the accused applicant were running a partnership firm which was 3 subsequently dissolved. While running the said firm, the son of the complainant stolen the cheque, in question, and misused the same and lodged the impugned complaint case against the applicant.
5. Learned Counsel for the complainant rebutted the contention raised by learned Counsel for the accused applicant and submitted that the accused applicant issued the cheque, in question, putting his signature on the same in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability. Learned Counsel for the complainant also contended that if the cheque, in question, was stolen by the son of the complainant, then why the applicant did not lodge any report nor did he issue any instruction for "stop payment" to the bank concerned.
6. Heaving heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that the present dispute involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court is also of the view that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, a prima facie case is made out against accused applicant. Even otherwise, it is the admitted case of applicant that the cheque, in question, bears his signature; the same was 4 dishonourned due to insufficient fund and he received the legal notice sent by the complainant within time.
7. The authority rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, 2015 1 Crimes (SC) 48, relied by learned Counsel for the accused applicant, is not attracted in the present case. In the said case, the trial was concluded and thereafter the accused was acquitted on the ground that the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum of rupees fourteen lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there is legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court observing that the conclusion was arrived at by the trial court on proper appreciation of material evidence on record.
8. In view of what has been set forth above, I find no substance in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) Prabodh