Uttarakhand High Court
C482/2054/2023 on 18 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
9Sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No.2054 of 2023
With
C482 No.2061 of 2023
C482 No.2062 of 2023
C482 No.2063 of 2023
C482 No.2065 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, DAG, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
These are the bunch of C482
applications. In each of these C482
applications, the principal argument of the
learned counsel for the applicant is that no
notices, as mandated under section 138(b) to be
read with sub-section (c) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, were served upon him. Hence,
the proceedings would be vitiated.
Though, this argument of the learned
counsel for the applicant may not be sustainable
owing to the findings, which have been
observed in the impugned summoning order as
despite the notices being sent, the accused was
not found at the given address, and the notices
were returned. So, this argument is not tenable
and is not accepted by this Court at this stage.
Secondly, the learned counsel for the
applicant argues that the notices as issued by
the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District
Almora, would be bad in the eyes of law for the
reason being that since the applicants, who are
common in all these C482 applications, are the
residents of Dhikuli, Tehsil Ramnagar, District
Nainital, being the place, which is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate i.e.
Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora.
There has had to be a compliance of the
provisions contained under section 202 of
CrPC, because in the absence of there being
any inquiry conducted as contemplated, therein,
the proceedings under section 138 of the NI
Act, would be vitiated.
On this simplicitor ground only, and
which is quite apparent from the impugned
summoning orders, which are the subject matter
of the challenge. For example:-
In C482 No.2054 of 2023, the
summoning order as it has been issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet,
District Almora, in Criminal Case
No.41 of 2023, "Corbett Ratan Vs. M/s
Sky Flair Hotel and Resort and
another", on 01.04.2023, does not
reflects compliance to the provisions
contained under section 202 of CrPC.
In C482 No.2061 of 2023, the
summoning order as it has been issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet,
District Almora, in Criminal Case
No.280 of 2022, "Corbett Ratan Vs.
M/s Sky Flair Hotel and Resort and
another", on 18.10.2022, do not satisfy
the terms and conditions of the
provisions contained contained under
section 202 of CrPC.
In C482 No.2062 of 2023, the
summoning order as it has been issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet,
District Almora, in Criminal Case
No.296 of 2022, "Corbett Ratan Vs.
M/s Sky Flair Hotel and Resort and
another", on 03.02.2023, do not satisfy
the terms and conditions of the
provisions contained contained under
section 202 of CrPC.
In C482 No.2063 of 2023, the
summoning order as it has been issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet,
District Almora, in Criminal Case
No.180 of 2022, "Corbett Ratan Vs.
M/s Sky Flair Hotel and Resort and
another", on 06.06.2022, do not satisfy
the terms and conditions of the
provisions contained under section 202
of CrPC.
In C482 No.2065 of 2023, the
summoning order as it has been passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet,
District Almora, in Criminal Case
No.295 of 2022, "Corbett Ratan Vs.
M/s Sky Flair Hotel and Resort and
another", on 03.02.2023, doesn't refers
to the compliance of the provisions
contained under section 202 of the
CrPC.
In support of his contentions, the learned
counsel for the applicant, in order to fortify his
stand qua the compliance of the provisions
contained under section 202 of CrPC, has harped
upon the judgments as reported in 2014 (14) SCC
638, "Vijay Dhanuka and others Vs. Najima
Mamtaj and others", and 2017 (3) SCC 528,
"Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar
and another", wherein, it has been mandated that
where the accused person is a resident outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate
concerned, who has taken the cognizance, he will
have had to resort to the process as provided
under section 202 of CrPC, for conducting an
inquiry to justify the issuance of the process to
the accused.
Apparently, the said aspect is not satisfied
in the present C482 applications.
Connect these C482 applications. In each
of these C482 applications, there would be an
interim order to the effect that the respective
summoning order as it has been issued against
the present applicants in the respective criminal
complaint cases under section 138 of the NI Act,
which is pending consideration before the court
of Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora,
would be kept in abeyance.
Let a copy of this order be placed in each
of the connected C482 applications.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
18.10.2023
NR
