Judgment reserved on: 19.06.2025 Judgment delivered on: 05.08.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.2464 of 2023

Bharat Singh .…..Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another …..Respondents

Presence:

Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/

respondent No.1.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)

By means for the present C482 application, the

applicant has put to challenge the proceedings of Execution Case No.13 of 2022 Rahul Panwar Vs. Bharat Singh, pending before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, arising out of Complaint Case No.1292 of 2021 Rahul Panwar Vs. Bharat Singh, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri, under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a monetary dispute arose between the applicant and respondent No.2 during the course of business, where they were jointly working as Contractors for performing certain civil works. During the monetary dispute, applicant issued certain cheques to respondent No.2, which got dishonoured, and subsequently, complaints were filed by him under Section 138 of the Act against the applicant. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and the applicant entered into a compromise in National Lok Adalat, where applicant agreed to pay Rupees Five Lakh to respondent No.2. However, due to non- payment of the amount by applicant, respondent No.2

moved Execution Case No.13 of 2022 Rahul Panwar Vs. Bharat Singh, before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri, who passed orders for attachment of property of the applicant and also issued arrest warrant. Hence, the applicant is present before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not able to pay the agreed amount to respondent No.2 due to severe financial crisis faced by him. He further submits that the applicant does have an intention of making the due payment to respondent No.2, which could be clearly seen by his effort of making a full payment of Rupees Six Lakh to another contractor, Ramesh Singh Tomar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant is making genuine efforts for arranging funds which was due to respondent No.2 and apart from the present case, there is also another dispute to be settled with respondent No.2, therefore, the orders of the learned Executing Court will cause more hardships in arranging the funds to be paid to respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed his counter affidavit and on the basis of it, he submits that the applicant was required to make a payment of Rupees Ten Lakhs to respondent No.2 on 17.01.2020, but, didn’t pay him on the pretext of COVID, despite receiving the payment from the principal contractor. He further submits that the applicant issued a cheque for the said amount after a delay of 18 months on 04.08.2021, which got dishonoured, and therefore, a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on 09.11.2021. Thereafter, a compromise was reached between the parties at National Lok Adalat, where the applicant agreed to pay a reduced amount of Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand (Rs.5,50,000/-) in two installments i.e. Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand (Rs.2,50,000/-) would be given in the month of February 2022 and remaining amount of Rupees Three Lakhs (Rs.3,00,000/-)

would be given in the month of April 2022.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterates that no amount was given in the month of April, 2022 and when contacted, no response came from the applicant, which clearly shows that he never had an intention to pay the amount. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated against the applicant on 01.09.2022. He emphasizes on the fact