REPORTABLE Judgment reserved on: 05.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 04.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.1022 of 2022 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C)

Mohit Batola --Applicant Versus M/s Jaydee Capital Infrastructure --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Present C482 application is filed assailing the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by learned Fifth Additional CJM Dehradun in Complaint Case No.2822 of 2020, M/s Jaydee Infrastructure v. Mohit Batola (Annexure No.12) pending in the said Court with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent entered into a compromise deed dated 11.12.2019, pursuant to which the applicant issued certain post-dated cheques to respondent on the understanding that the agreed construction work would be completed in due course. According to the applicant, respondent raised the final bill on 15.01.2020, covering construction only up to the fourth floor, and subsequently failed to carry out the remaining construction, which led the applicant to terminate the agreement on 07.05.2020. Meanwhile, respondent presented one of the cheques in question; while respondent claims it was deposited on 06.05.2020, the applicant asserts it was presented on 08.05.2020, as shown in the return memo. However, the cheque was dishonoured, and in pursuance of this, a statutory notice was issued, which the applicant denied liability for.

3. Thereafter, respondent filed Complaint Case No. 2822 of 2020 on 27.08.2020 against the applicant before the learned Fifth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1881) which in turn initiated proceedings against the applicant. Parallel to these proceedings, respondent also filed Writ Petition No.2185 of 2020 dated 20.12.2020, contending that the cheque had in fact been presented prior to the termination of the agreement, i.e., on 06.05.2020. However, the applicant, relying on the return memo, contends that the cheque was deposited after termination and also questions the authenticity of the bank letter dated 02.07.2021 produced by the respondent. Aggrieved by the continuation of Complaint Case No. 2822 of 2020, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the said proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is a clear abuse of the process of law, as it is based on a cheque presented after termination of the contractual agreement on 07.05.2020. He submits that while the complainant falsely claims that the cheque was deposited on 06.05.2020, the Return Memo issued by the bank categorically shows that the presentation occurred on 08.05.2020 — i.e., after termination of the contract. He also submits that in an attempt to mislead the Court, the complainant subsequently procured a letter dated 02.07.2021 from the bank, which neither forms part of the original Return Memo nor is admissible under established banking practice. Learned counsel also submits that the written memo report is the most valuable document as this document is the deciding factor for a limitation in instituting Section 138 of NI Act. In support of this contention, reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi (2012) 1 SCC 476, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in paragraphs 25, 26, 27, and 29, held that documents not part of the primary record, or procured subsequently without due verification, cannot form the basis for judicial findings and lack evidentia