The court emphasized that the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very wide but requires the court to be cautious and diligent.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. These are bunch of five C482 Applications, which have been respectively preferred by the applicant, who is common in all the C482 Applications, as against the respective summoning order, which has been issued by the learned trial Court, calling upon the applicant, to participate in the complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The precise details would be as under.

2. In C482 Application No. 410 of 2021, the challenge given by the applicant is to the Complaint Case No. 134/19-1739/19 of 2019, by virtue of which, he has put a challenge to the summoning order, as it has been issued by the Court of 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 10.04.2019.

3. In C482 Application No. 411 of 2021, the applicant has put a challenge to the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 131/19-1740/19 of 2019, as well as to the summoning order dated 10.04.2019, as it was issued in the aforesaid complaint proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, by the Court of 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

4. In C482 Application No. 412 of 2021, the applicant has put a challenge to the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 135/19-1741/19 of 2019, as well as the summoning order, which has been issued by 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 10.04.2019.

5. In C482 Application No. 413 of 2021, the applicant has put a challenge to the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 133/19-1742/19 of 2019, as well as the summoning order, as issued on 10.04.2019, by the Court of 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

6. In C482 Application No. 414 of 2021, the applicant has put a challenge to the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 132/19-1743/19 of 2019, as well as the summoning order dated 10.04.2019, which has been issued by 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

7. The basic argument, as extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is, that in all these C482 Applications, invariably, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, could be made out against the applicant, on the ground, that in view of the details given with regard to the alleged payment, which has been claimed to have been made by the applicant. He contends, that since the entire financial liability, which was due to be paid by the applicant under the instrument, has already been remitted, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, could be made out against him, and in an event, if the amount has already been remitted by him, if the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is initiated, that in itself will be an abuse of process.

8. This argument has been consistently raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant in all the connected C482 Applications.

9. In order to answer this argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, the question would be, as to what was the amount due to be paid under an instrument? what amount has actually been remitted as detailed by him in the respective C482 Applications? they require an arithmetical calculation, and if the Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, ventures to scrutinize the details of payment and the liability, it would be beyond the scope of exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, because that may not be the scope for the Court, to exercise its inherent powers by scrutinizing the details and evidence, in order to make out a case as to whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is at all, made out or not.

10. In fact, this is the principle, which has been widely dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in a judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in its judgment that the Court, exercising the powers under Section 482 of CrPC is not suppose to cond