Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 March, 2026
2024:UHC:6580
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 861 of 2024
10th March, 2026
Munnu Giri ...........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .......Respondents
With
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 920 of 2024
Munnu Giri ...........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .......Respondents
With
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 930 of 2024
Munnu Giri ...........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .......Respondents
With
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1099 of 2024
Munnu Giri alias Mannu Giri ...........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prem Kaushal, along with Ashish Jemini, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Manisha Thakur, learned counsel for respondent
no.2/complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
The present applications under Section 482 1 2024:UHC:6580 Cr.P.C., being C-482 No. 861 of 2024 and C-482 No. 1099 of 2024, have been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 7292 of 2023 and Complaint Case No. 7291 of 2023, respectively, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Further, C-482 No. 920 of 2024 and C-482 No. 930 of 2024 have been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 25.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, respectively, passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 7355 of 2023 and Complaint Case No. 7409 of 2023, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, along with the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid cases.
2. Since a common question of law and fact is involved in all the four applications, relating to dishonour of cheques arising out of the same transaction between the same parties, the matters are being decided together by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of C-482 No. 861 of 2024 are being taken into consideration.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the 2 2024:UHC:6580 applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 were both serving in the Border Security Force (BSF) and are stated to be close friends. It is alleged that the applicant had taken a friendly loan of ₹24,50,000/- from respondent no.2 with the assurance that the same would be returned along with profit amounting to ₹36,00,000/-. In order to secure the said amount, the applicant allegedly issued four cheques of ₹9,00,000/- each, totalling ₹36,00,000/, in favour of respondent no.2.
4. It is further alleged that when the applicant failed to repay the said amount, respondent no.2 presented the cheques before the concerned bank for encashment; however, the same were dishonoured with the remark "Exceeds Arrangement." Thereafter, respondent no.2 issued legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and subsequently instituted complaint cases before the court concerned. The learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint and the affidavit filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., took cognizance vide order dated 21.11.2023 and issued summons to the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the amount was received by the applicant 3 2024:UHC:6580 from respondent no.2 for the purpose of investment in a land purchase transaction and that the cheques in question were issued merely as security cheques. It is further submitted that the applicant has already repaid the entire amount along with profit to respondent no.2 and the dispute had already been settled between the parties. However, despite such settlement, respondent no.2 has misused the cheques and filed the present false complaints.
6. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of the affidavit filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but while issuing the summoning order the court below has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that since the applicants are residents of Haridwar, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Dehradun, the learned Magistrate ought to have conducted an inquiry or directed investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. prior to issuance of process.
7. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.2/complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the 4 2024:UHC:6580 applicants and submitted that respondent no.2 duly issued statutory notices with respect to all the four cheques, which were properly served upon the applicants. It is submitted that the plea of non-service of legal notice is incorrect. It is further submitted that Section 142(2)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that the jurisdiction in respect of offences under Section 138 N.I. Act lies with the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account is situated, and therefore the court at Dehradun has proper jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2020 has reiterated that where the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, holding of an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. prior to issuance of summons is mandatory, and the same cannot be dispensed with.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. It is not in dispute between the parties that 5 2024:UHC:6580 before issuance of summons to the applicants, who are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned, the procedure contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the learned Magistrate. For better appreciation, Section 202 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow:
"202. Postponement of issue of process (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made--
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200."
11. A plain reading of Section 202 Cr.P.C. makes it evident that where the accused resides at a place 6 2024:UHC:6580 beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall postpone issuance of process and conduct an inquiry himself or direct an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused.
12. In the present case, the record reveals that the learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue summons against the applicants without conducting the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., despite the admitted fact that the applicants are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the summoning orders passed by the learned Magistrate suffer from procedural illegality, as the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with.
14. Consequently, the impugned summoning orders passed in the aforesaid complaint cases are hereby set aside, and the matters are remanded back to the Trial Court to proceed afresh from the stage of inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
15. Considering the fact that the complaint cases 7 2024:UHC:6580 were instituted in the year 2023, and in view of the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which requires that complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act be decided expeditiously, the Trial Court is directed to conduct the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. at the earliest and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, and thereafter proceed with the complaint cases in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
16. In view of the aforesaid observations, all the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand disposed of accordingly.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ALOK MAHRA,J.) 10.03.2026 Mamta MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f TA 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 RANI d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b 66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd 004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.03.13 16:32:36 +05'30' 8