Uttarakhand High Court
June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 10 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4748
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1903 of 2023
10 June, 2025
Mohd Aslam --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This petition preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 12.02.2021,
passed by learned Additional CJM, Roorkee, District
Haridwar in Complaint Case No.956 of 2020, Nasrat vs.
Mohd. Aslam, under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act, 1881”).
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that due
to their being previous relations between the complainant
as well as the accused, a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs was
issued by the complainant to the applicant with the
assurance to return the money within six months. After
lapse of aforesaid time, when the complainant demanded
his money from the applicant several times, he (applicant
issued a Cheque No.001407) amounting to Rs.3 lakhs
with the assurance that the same would be honoured as
and when the same is produced. The complainant
accordingly presented the said cheque for payment in his
bank, which was returned to him on 09.09.2020 with the
remark of ‘anomaly in the signatures of account holder’.
The complainant then sent the registered notice which
was served upon the applicant and accordingly after
1
2025:UHC:4748
lapse of considerable time, he filed a complaint under
Section 138 of the Act, 1881 before the court below. On
the said complaint, the court below by way of impugned
order took cognizance and summoned the applicant to
face the trial under Section 138 of the Act, 1881.
3. The sole argument advanced on behalf of the
applicant is that in this case there is non-compliance of
provision of Section 141 of the Act. It was further argued
that in view of Section 141 of the Act, once the
instrument has been issued by the company or the firm,
the same is required to be impleaded necessarily which
was not done by respondent herein in the complaint
proceedings before the court below.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.2/complainant also admits this fact that there was
violation of Section 141 of the Act, 1881 in this case.
5. In such view of the matter, present C482
petition is allowed. Accordingly, the summoning order
dated 12.02.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.956 of 2020, Nasrat vs. Mohd. Aslam
are hereby quashed.
6. However, it is observed that quashing of
present proceedings would not be construed as an
impediment for the respondent to prefer fresh
proceedings before the competent court of law after
compliance of the provisions of Section 141 of the Act,
1881.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
10.06.2025
AK
2