Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 8 April, 2025
2025:UHC:2643
Re se r ve d j udgm e n t
I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTARAKH AN D
AT N AI N I TAL
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No.1489 of 2021
Vinay Pandey ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Yogesh Pant, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsels for the respondent no.2.
H on’ble Ashish N a it ha ni, J ( Ora l)
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed
by the applicant seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 899/2021
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter “N.I. Act“), pending before the learned ACJM,
Khatima, along with the summoning order dated 11.10.2021.
2. The case arises from the alleged dishonour of Cheque
No. 232022, dated 01.11.2020, drawn on Almora Urban
Cooperative Bank, Khatima Branch, for ₹10,40,000/-, purportedly
issued by the applicant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
The cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “Payment
Stopped by Drawer” on 29.05.2021.
3. Legal notice dated 15.06.2021 was issued by the
complainant (respondent no. 2), demanding payment within 15
days. Upon failure to comply, the complaint was filed on
02.08.2021. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and
summoned the applicant vide order dated 11.10.2021.
1
4. The applicant argues that the cheque was not issued in
discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, and that no
financial transaction exists to support the complainant’s claim. It is
further submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation and that
the summoning order was passed mechanically without judicial
application of mind.
5. At the outset, it is imperative to note that Section 139 of
the N.I. Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the
cheque that it was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable
debt or liability. Once execution is admitted, the burden shifts to the
accused to rebut the presumption. This legal position has been
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441.
6. The applicant has neither denied issuance of the cheque
nor presented any documentary evidence to rebut the statutory
presumption. Mere allegations of fraud or misuse, without cogent
evidence, are insufficient at the pre-trial stage to displace the
presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.N. Beena v.
Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC 458, held that mere denial or vague
allegation is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. Substantive
evidence must be presented at trial.
8. The contention that the cheque was misused after being
fraudulently obtained raises disputed questions of fact, which can
only be adjudicated after evidence is led. At this stage, no material
irregularity has been pointed out in the order of summoning which
would justify the invocation of inherent jurisdiction.
9. As regards the issue of limitation, the record indicates
that the dishonour occurred on 29.05.2021, legal notice was issued
on 15.06.2021, and the complaint was filed on 02.08.2021. These
dates are within the statutory period prescribed under Section
142(b) of the N.I. Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R.
Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609, reiterated
that computation of limitation involves mixed questions of law and
fact, best left to be determined by the trial court.
10. The allegation that the learned Magistrate took
cognizance without application of mind is unsustainable. The
complaint, cheque, return memo, and notice were duly considered,
and the summoning order records reasons for proceeding against
the applicant. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad
Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420, the Supreme Court observed that if a
magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, detailed
reasoning is not required at the stage of cognizance.
11. Section 482 CrPC is not a substitute for trial. It is well
settled that inherent powers of the High Court should be sparingly
exercised and not invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution. In State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme
Court laid down categories where interference under Section 482
may be justified. The present case does not fall in any of them.
12. The arguments regarding absence of debt and misuse of
the cheque are defense that require evidence. In Rajesh Agarwal v.
State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 484, it was held that where
foundational facts are in dispute, the case must proceed to trial.
13. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden of
rebutting the presumption under Section 139. The complaint
discloses all necessary ingredients of the offense under Section 138
N.I. Act, and no exceptional circumstance is made out warranting
interference.
14. In view of the above discussion and settled legal
position, this Court finds no merit in the present application.
15. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1489 of
2021 is hereby dismissed. The applicant is directed to face trial in
accordance with the law before the court below.
( Ashish N a it ha ni, J.)
08.04.2025
NR/