I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

16th May, 2025 CRI MI NAL MI SCELLANEOUS APPLI CATI ON NO. 64 OF 2018 Rajendra Mandola …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate.

Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A.

Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, No. 2 Advocate.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Rajendra Mandola, assailing the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2017. By the impugned order, the revisional court set aside the summoning order dated 24.10.2016 and the order issuing a non-bailable warrant dated 25.02.2017, passed by the Trial Court in Criminal Complaint Case No. 614 of 2016, instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The dispute arises out of a business understanding between the applicant and the respondent, Naveen Kumar, relating to property transactions in Kotdwara. As part of this arrangement, both parties exchanged signed cheques for ₹62,00,000/-, intended to be used upon execution of a land deal.

3. The applicant presented Cheque No. 676302 dated 15.03.2016, issued by the respondent, which was dishonoured on 02.06.2016 with the remark “account closed.” A legal notice dated 09.06.2016 demanding payment was served but went unheeded.

4. Based on this, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court took cognizance on 24.10.2016 and summoned the respondent. Upon his non-appearance, a non-bailable warrant was issued on 25.02.2017.

5. The revisional Court quashed these orders, holding that no prima facie evidence of legally enforceable liability was established. The applicant now seeks restoration of the summoning order, asserting that the ingredients of Section

138 of the NI Act are prima facie fulfilled.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, Rajendra Mandola, submits that the learned Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the summoning and non-bailable warrant orders dated 24.10.2016 and 25.02.2017 in Complaint Case No. 614 of 2016. It is argued that Cheque No. 676302 dated 15.03.2016 for ₹62,00,000/-, issued by the respondent, was dishonoured with the endorsement “account closed.” A statutory notice was duly served, yet no payment was made, thereby satisfying all essential ingredients under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

8. It is contended that the revisional court prematurely evaluated factual disputes and defences, which are matters for trial. The applicant asserts that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability under a business understanding and that the respondent’s defence ought to be tested during evidence, not at the summoning stage.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent had similarly presented a cheque issued by the applicant, resulting in a separate complaint, though the applicant was eventually acquitted. Quashing the present proceedings, it is urged, results in a miscarriage of justice and undermines the deterrent value of Section 138 of the NI Act. The applicant prays for the setting aside of the order dated

28.11.2017 and for the resumption of the trial.

10. The State supported the revisional order, arguing that the cheque appeared to be part of a business arrangement or security, not issued in discharge of a legal debt. It was submitted that Section 138 does not apply to such security cheques unless liability existed at the time of presentation.

11. The State also pointed to documentary evidence indicating that the applicant had wrongfully retained the cheque after the termination of business ties. It prayed for dismissal of the application under Section 482 CrPC and for the r