Vinod Gaut am v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

dist inct allegat ions. There is no procedural or legal infirm it y in t he sum m oning order , and no gr ounds exist t o invoke t he Court ’s inher ent pow ers under Sect ion 482 Cr. P.C. The applicat ion, it is ar gued, deserv es dism issal.

13. This Court is conscious of t he lim it ed scope of it s j urisdict ion under Sect ion 482 of t he Code of Crim inal Procedure. I t is a well- set t led principle of law t hat t he inher ent powers of t he High Court are t o be exer cised sparingly, wit h circum spect ion, and only in cases wher e t he cont inuat ion of t he proceedings would am ount t o an abuse of t he process of law or w here t he ends of j ust ice so dem and. The power t o quash crim inal pr oceedings is not t o be exercised t o st ifle a legit im at e prosecut ion at t he behest of an accused unless t he Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. 4 Ashish Naithani J. com plaint on it s face fails t o disclose any offence or wher e t he proceedings ar e m anifest ly at t ended wit h m ala fides or inst it ut ed wit h an ult erior m ot ive for wr eaking vengeance.

14. I n t he pr esent case, t he fact ual scenario reflect s t hat t he genesis of t he disput e lies in financial t ransact ions bet w een t he applicant and t he com plainant . The applicant has unequivocally assert ed t hat he had advanced a friendly loan t o t he com plainant . I nacknowledgem ent of t he sam e, t he com plainant had issued t wo cheques w hich w er e subsequent ly dishonour ed.

15. Legal not ices under Sect ion 138 of t he Negot iable I nst rum ent s Act wer e sent , and cases w er e inst it ut ed in t he court at Ludhiana. Subsequent ly, t he com plainant / respondent No. 2 init iat ed a com plaint case in Haridwar, assert ing t hat t he cheques in quest ion w ere never issued by him and had been lost m uch earlier , for which police r eport s and an affidavit had already been filed, indicat ing t he loss of said cheques. Furt her, t he com plaint filed under Sect ions 420, 467, 468, and 471 of t he I PC is based on allegat ions of forgery , cheat ing, and fraudulent use of docum ent s.

16. Whet her t he applicant dishonest ly used cheques which he knew w ere not lawfully obt ained, and whet her any int ent ion t o cheat was pr esent t he incept ion, ar e quest ions of fact . The com plainant has, in his affidavit and annexures, r eferr ed t o m issing report s lodged w ell before t he issuance of t he legal not ice by t he applicant . These report s, alt hough not det erm inat ive by t hem selves, prim a facie lend credence t o t he com plainant ’s claim t hat t he cheques wer e report ed as lost m uch before t hey w ere used.

17. Moreover , t he police inquiry under Sect ion 202 Cr.P.C. was conduct ed, and a r eport was subm it t ed t o t he Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. 5 Ashish Naithani J. Magist rat e. Upon due considerat ion of t he cont ent s of t he com plaint , suppor t ing docum ent s, and t he police r eport , t he learned Magist rat e found it fit t o issue process under t he relevant sect ions of t he I PC. I t is not t he case t hat t he Magist rat e has act ed in a m echanical m anner or wit hout any applicat ion of m ind. The sum m oning order reflect s t hat t he learned court below consider ed t he m at erial on recor d befor e exer cising j urisdict ion.

18. I t is also pert inent t o not e t hat t he exist ence of a parallel proceeding under t he Negot iable I nst rum ent s Act does not aut om at ically bar t he lodging of a crim inal com plaint under t he I PC if dist inct offences are alleged. A civil liabilit y or a st at ut ory offence under t he NI Act does not preclude t he lodging of a com plaint under I PC if an independent cause of act ion exist s, disclosing ingr edient s of cheat ing or for gery . The allegat ion t hat t he I PC com plaint is a “ count er- blast ” t o t he Sect ion 138 NI Act cases is a m at t er of infer ence t hat requires deeper exam inat ion and cannot be sum m arily accept ed as grounds forquashing t he proceedings.

19. The applicant has em phasized t hat he is t he holder in due cour se of t he cheques and has a pr esum pt ive right under t he NI Act . While such a presum pt ion exist s, it is rebut t able and subj ect t o proof during t rial. I f t he com plainant succeeds in proving t hat t he cheques w ere never issued volunt arily, or t hat t hey w er e lost and m isused, it m ay t ilt t he scales in his favour. Lik ewise, if t he applicant est ablishes bona fides and t he legit im acy of t he t ransact ion, t he crim inal com plaint m ay fall flat . Thus, bot h versions need t o be t est ed in t he cr ucible of t rial.

20. Furt herm or e, t he quest ion whet her t he essent ial ingr edient s of Sect ion 420 I PC, nam ely, decept ion, fraudulent inducem ent , and wrongful gain, ar e m ade out , is a m at t er Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. 6 Ashish Naithani J. which can only be det erm ined aft er recor ding of evidence. At t his st age, t he allegat ions in t he com plaint cannot be said t o be so absur d or inherent ly im probable t hat no prudent person could ever conclude t hat t here is sufficient ground t o pr oceed. ORDER I n light of t he above discussion, t his Court does not find sufficient ground t o exercise it s inherent j urisdict ion t o quash t he im pugned sum m oning order or t he proceedings arising out of Com plaint Case No. 402 of 2018. The issues raised by t he applicant are largely fact ual and can be appropriat ely adj udicat ed during t rial. The applicant shall, how ever , be at libert y t o raise all perm issible legal and fact ual defences before t he t rial court in accordance wit h law . Accordingly, t he Crim inal Miscellaneous Applicat ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. is dism issed. I t is clarified t hat any obser vat ions m ade her ein ar e confined t o t he adj udicat ion of t he present applicat ion under Sect ion 482 Cr .P.C. and shall not be const r ued as an expr ession on t he m erit s of t he m at t er pending befor e t he t rial Dt : 15.05.2025 SB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 215 of 2020 – Vinod Gautam vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. 7 Ashish Naithani J.