MADHU BHATHLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 12.9.2003 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.1105 of 2003, whereby the learned Special J.M. took the cognizance against the applicant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act). It has further been prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial judge. If the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicant has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.