The court clarified the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the discretionary nature of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the sufficiency of the court's scrutiny of documents to justify the summoning order.

JUDGMENT :

The present applicant, is as an opposite party to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which stood registered by way of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1155 of 2022, Anuj Kumar Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Kukreti, which stood instituted before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, have issued the summoning order, whereby, the present applicant has been summoned to be tried for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is under challenge.

2. There are three-fold arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant in order to put a challenge to the summoning order, which has been issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 07.01.2022.

3. To summarize the argument extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, firstly he submits, that for the purposes of drawing a conclusion in order to justify the sustainability of the summoning order, the assimilation of facts based on appreciation of evidence is required to be done by the Courts under section 482 CrPC and that would be falling well within the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, he submits that the summoning order would be bad in the eyes of law because the provisions contained under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which he contends to be mandatory, has not been complied with. Thirdly, he contends, that since there had been several prior instituted civil suits, being Civil Suit No. 37 of 2021 and Civil Suit No.49 of 2021 and a proceedings, which was instituted before the commercial courts, the resort to the complaint proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, ought to have been avoided by the complainant.

4. This Court feels it to answer the first question, raised by the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether in the exercise of powers under Section 482, whether the High Court could assimilate and appreciate the evidences or scrutinize the same for the purposes of scrutinizing, its jurisdiction under Section 482 in support of its contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has made reference to a judgment of (2013) 6 SCC 323, Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and, particularly, he has referred to paragraph 12 of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder;

“12. In view thereof, if any person has forged in a letter under the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the matter being of grave nature requires investigation and, in view of above, we cannot find fault with the action initiated against Umesh Kumar, appellant. Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law. However, before the charges could be framed, Umesh Kumar, appellant, approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed alongwith the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of su