Randeep Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1347 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


      Criminal Misc. Application No. 545 of 2022

Randeep Singh                                   ........... Petitioner

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                 ........ Respondents



Present : Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Meena Bisht,
          Advocate for the State.
          Mr. Pankaj Semwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mahendra Singh
          Rawat, Advocate for the private respondent.



                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

order dated 09.10.2019 as well as order dated 04.04.2022

passed in Criminal Case No. 3331 of 2017, Jaspal Singh

v. Ramandeep Singh, under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"), by the court of

Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur ("the case"), as well as the

entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on a complaint filed by

respondent no. 2 ("the complainant") under Section 138 of

the Act.

4. The complaint was filed on 27.08.2019. On the

same day, cognizance has been taken and the petitioner

was summoned to answer the accusation under Section

138 of the Act.

5. Subsequent to it, the petitioner was examined

under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (for short "the Code"). It appears that that on

27.08.2019, the date was fixed for cross examination of

the complainant, but the petitioner did not cross examine

the complainant. Therefore, the opportunity of the

petitioner to cross examine the complainant has been

closed and the case was fixed for examination of the

petitioner under Section 313 of the Code. On a

subsequent date, i.e. on 09.10.2019 the petitioner was

not present, hence, Non-Bailable Warrant has been

issued against him and the same order was repeated on

04.04.2022. It is impugned herein along with the entire

proceedings of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that, in fact, the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the case. He has nothing to do with the

cheque-in-question. He did not issue the cheque. The

account from which, the cheque has been drawn does not

belong to him. Therefore, the proceedings need to be

quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner has apprehension that, in case,

he appears in the court, he would be taken into custody

and the bail application may not be heard for a long. He

would submit that if the petitioner appears in the trial

court it would be a case of conviction because the

petitioner did not cross-examine PW1, the company.

8. The stage of the trial has been narrated

hereinbefore. Cognizance was taken in the year 2017. The

petitioner has been examined under Section 251 of the

Code though the date is not recorded in such

examination, which is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the

petition. The petitioner has stated that the cheque does

not belong to him but, he has not categorically stated as

to how he has been implicated. It is in the year 2019, the

petitioner did not appear to cross-examine the

complainant. He did not appear thereafter. Non Bailable

Warrants issued were against him. The case is at the

stage of 313 of the Code.

9. It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code.

The jurisdiction is wide but, much guided by the settled

principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments.

10. In case, prima facie case is made out, generally

interference is not warranted unless there are exceptional

circumstances to do so. The documents have been placed

before this Court to show that the cheque does not belong

to the petitioner. The petitioner had immense opportunity

to cross-examine the complainant and question him that

the cheque does not belong to him or/and the account

from which the cheque was drawn does not belong to

him. The petitioner did not choose to do so. He has

himself absented for the last three years. The trial is at

the last stage. The petitioner is to be examined under

Section 313 of the Code. At this stage, the defence, which

the petitioner is taking may not be entertained under

Section 482 of the Code. Therefore, there is no reason to

entertain the petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

11. This Court does not speculate as to what would

happen in the trial. The examination-in-chief of the

complainant is not before the Court. There may be

various questions which may arise in the case. Who stops

the petitioner to move an application seeking permission

of the court to cross-examine the witnesses, who had

already been examined? In case, such application is

moved, perhaps the court would consider it, based on the

grounds, on which, it is moved. The defence which the

petitioner has tried to raise before this Court may also be

taken by the petitioner in the case. Even if, the witnesses

are not cross-examined, who stops the petitioner to

adduce his defence at the trial?

12. In so far as the bail is concerned, this Court

has no doubt that, in case, the petitioner appears in the

court and move an application for bail, it shall definitely

be decided as expeditiously as possible.

13. With the above observations, the petition

stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.04.2022 Sanjay