Dharm Singh v. State of Uttarakhand another

Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned AGA, for the State along with Ms Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. Heard learned counsels for t he part ies, and perused t he records.

2. By m eans of t he present applicat ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C., t he applicant seeks quashing of t he proceedings arising out of a com plaint under Sect ion 138 of t he Negot iable I nst rum ent s Act , 1881, pending before t he learned j udicial Magist rat e, Jaspur Dist rict , Udham Singh Nagar in Com plaint Case no. 670 of 2019.

3. I t was subm it t ed t hat t he applicant is not under any debt or liabilit y t owards t he respondent . According t o t he com plaint , t he m oney was advanced by respondent no. 1 t o t he son of t he Applicant . I n lieu, t herefore, t he son of t he Applicant handed over a check signed by t he applicant t o respondent no. 1.

4. The core of t he applicant 's cont ent ion is t hat t he cheque in- quest ion was issued wit hout any legally enforceable liabilit y and t hat cont inuance of t he crim inal proceedings am ount s t o an abuse of process. Criminal Misc. Application.1923 of 2021-----Dharm Singh….Vs.... State & another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

5. I t is, however, evident t hat t he disput e pert ains t o a cheque t hat was allegedly issued by t he applicant and lat er dishonoured on present at ion. The very foundat ion of t he com plaint rest s on t he presum pt ion of liabilit y under Sect ion 139 of t he Negot iable I nst rum ent s Act , which is a rebut t able presum pt ion, and t he burden t o rebut t he sam e lies upon t he drawer of t he cheque.

6. This Court is not persuaded by t he subm ission t hat m ere denial of liabilit y or exist ence of a defence would j ust ify quashing of proceedings at t he t hreshold. I t is well set t led t hat t he defence of t he accused, howsoever plausible it m ay appear, cannot be looked int o at t he st age of deciding an applicat ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C.

7. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Ra j i v Th a p a r v . M a d a n La l K a p o o r , ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 SCC 3 3 0 , has laid down t hat t he inherent j urisdict ion of t he High Court under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. ought not t o be exercised t o st ifle legit im at e prosecut ion, part icularly when t he com plaint discloses com m ission of an offence on it s face.

8. The applicant has not been able t o dem onst rat e t hat t he com plaint or t he sum m oning order suffers from such legal infirm it y or absurdit y as would at t ract t he lim it ed grounds recognised in law for quashing proceedings.

9. I n Anoop K u m a r v . St a t e o f U.P., ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 3 SCC 5 9 8 , it was reit erat ed t hat t he issue of whet her a cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt is a m at t er of t rial. I t cannot be pre- em pt ively adj udicat ed upon under t he garb of a pet it ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C., especially when such issue is deeply root ed in disput ed fact s. Criminal Misc. Application.1923 of 2021-----Dharm Singh….Vs.... State & another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

10. I n t he present case, t he quest ion as t o whet her t he cheque was issued in t he discharge of a legally enforceable debt , or was m isused or obt ained wit hout consent , are all m at t ers t hat necessit at e evidence. The t rial court t he appropriat e forum t o record evidence and writ t en findings on such disput ed fact s. This Court , while exercising it s inherent j urisdict ion, cannot undert ake a m ini- t rial nor weigh t he probat ive value of evidence at t his st age.

11. No case is m ade out t o invoke t he ext raordinary j urisdict ion of t his Court under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. The cont inuat ion of t he t rial does not appear t o be m anifest ly unj ust or legally unt enable. On t he cont rary, perm it t ing t he t rial t o proceed would enable all concerned t o have t he m at t er adj udicat ed on m erit s.

12. Aft er hearing t he learned counsel for t he part ies and on perusal of t he record, t his Court finds no reason t o int erfere. The Crim inal Miscellaneous Applicat ion No. 1923 of 2021 st ands dism issed. (Ashish Naithani J.)

08.05.2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa 08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF 0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Misc. Application.1923 of 2021-----Dharm Singh….Vs.... State & another 3 Ashish Naithani J.