PANKAJ BAKSHI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, in Case No. 1677 of 2004 titled Prateek Arora v. Pankaj Bakshi under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act P.S. Gangnahar, Roorkee, Haridwar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant -respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, alleging therein that respondent No. 3 was given a cheque of Rs. 20,000/ -, a cheque of Rs. 10,000/ - and four cheques of Rs. 5,000/ - each by the applicant -petitioner on 10.3.2004. But when the said cheques were deposited in the bank, the same were dishonoured on 9.9.2004 by the Bank with the remark "account is closed". Thereafter, the complainant had given a notice to applicant/petitioner on 23.9.2004 regarding dishonour of the cheques. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioner summoned him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 22.11.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance in the matter after considering the entire material collected by the police during the course of investigation and no abuse of process of court would be caused to the accused petitioner, if the case proceeds before the trial court. The evidence in the case is still incomplete and hazy. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioner at this stage. Any judgment rendered by this Court would amount to pre -trial. It is the job of the trial judge to decide the matter on the basis of evidence to be collected before it and then to decide the case on merits. However, I do not find any abuse of process of court and any flagrant injustice is to be caused to the petitioner at this stage, in case, if he faces the trial before the trial court. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the court below by summoning the petitioner as accused has committed any manifest error which may warrant the interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.