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

15th May, 2025 CRI MI NAL MI SCELLANEOUS APPLI CATI ON NO. 215 of 2020 Vinod Gautam …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate.

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

Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Verma, No. 2 Advocate.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, Vinod Gautam, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 402 of 2018 titled Vishal Vats vs. Vinod Gautam, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant further prays for quashing the entire proceedings of the said complaint case.

2. As per the FIR, the genesis of the criminal proceedings traces back to a private complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, Vishal Vats, wherein he alleged that certain cheques and stamp papers belonging to him were lost and subsequently misused by the applicant to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On this basis, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicant on 22.10.2019. The applicant was never taken into custody in relation to this complaint, and the matter remains at the stage of summoning and pre-trial.

3. According to the applicant, he is the proprietor of M/s S.R. Jewellers, Ludhiana, and had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the complainant, Respondent No. 2, in August 2016. Upon repeated demands, the respondent is alleged to have issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 4.5 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs, which were dishonoured upon presentation. Legal notices were issued, and subsequently, the applicant filed two separate complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Following this, the respondent allegedly filed a retaliatory complaint in Haridwar, asserting that the cheques in question were lost and had been misused by the applicant. This complaint led to the summoning order now under challenge.

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

5. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 are mala fide and retaliatory, having been instituted only after the applicant lodged complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is urged that the complaint alleging misuse of lost cheques is a fabricated counterblast designed to derail bona fide legal action. The applicant, a jeweller by profession, had extended a friendly loan of ₹7.5 lakhs to the complainant, which was acknowledged through the issuance of two cheques. Upon dishonour of the said cheques, statutory notices were served, followed by the initiation of appropriate proceedings before the competent court in Ludhiana.

6. It is further argued that the impugned summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner, without due judicial application of mind, and that the complaint on its face does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, and

471 IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 are not only retaliatory in nature but were also strategically timed to frustrate the applicant’s recourse to legal remedies under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

8. It is pointed out that the complaint at Haridwar, alleging that the cheques were lost and later misused, was instituted only after the complainant had been summoned in the proceedings initiated by the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act.

9. This sequence of events, it is urged, suggests a calculated misuse of the criminal justice system for collateral objectives. The applicant maintains that the controversy pertains to a financial transaction and, even if the