JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 8.9.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 3711 of 2020 (Alok Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Ballia as well as the entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of court. According to the learned counsel for applicant, there is no legally chargeable debt against the applicant. Apart from above, the present criminal proceedings are otherwise not maintainable for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the N.I. Act.

5. All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

6. The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

7. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976) 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

8. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976) 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

9. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this C