Dismissed¶7

Lalit Kumar Giri v. Gulzar

Uttarakhand HC5 May 2026C528/1912/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court (Alok Mahra, J.) dismisses C528 No.1912 of 2025 challenging cognizance/summoning under S.138 NI Act; cheque issuance, alteration/misuse and forensic examination are disputed factual matters for trial; prima facie standard suffices at summoning; inherent/revisional jurisdiction not to stifle prosecution; liberty reserved to defend before trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant shall be at liberty to raise all his pleas before the trial Court. ¶7

Lalit Kumar Giri Vs Gulzar — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant shall be at liberty to raise all his pleas before the trial Court.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's contentions - that the two cheques were never issued in favour of the respondent, were allegedly handed over to one Babbu for a different purpose and were misused by way of overwriting and unauthorized presentation particularly after Babbu's death, warranting forensic examination - can be adjudicated at the threshold instead of at trial. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The applicant's submissions pertain to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature; whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, whether there has been any misuse or material alteration, and the evidentiary value of the writings on the cheques require appreciation of evidence and can only be examined during the course of trial.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out, and in the present case that requirement stands duly satisfied from the material on record.

¶5

Key takeaways

Inherent jurisdiction or revisional scrutiny is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold, particularly when the allegations disclose the commission of an offence and the defence sought to be raised involves factual determination.ratio¶6
The plea regarding forensic examination of the cheques is a matter of defence, which the applicant is at liberty to raise before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C528 No.1912 of 2025) [2026:UHC:3400] challenging cognizance and summoning orders dated 28.05.2019 and 13.03.2019 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in a complaint for dishonour of two cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held: (i) the applicant's pleas that the cheques were never issued in favour of the respondent, were handed to one Babbu for a different purpose and were misused by overwriting and unauthorized presentation after Babbu's death, requiring forensic examination, pertain to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold; (ii) at the summoning stage the Magistrate need only ascertain a prima facie case, which stood satisfied on the complaint, appended documents and the complainant's Section 200 Cr.P.C. statement; (iii) inherent or revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold where the defence is factual; the forensic-examination plea is a defence for the trial Court; (iv) no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders - application dismissed with liberty to raise all pleas before the trial Court. (Alok Mahra, J.)

¶1

2026:UHC:3400

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			C528 No.1912 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
			Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been preferred by the applicant assailing the orders dated 28.05.2019 and 13.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, whereby cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
			3. The record reflects that the respondent instituted a complaint alleging dishonour of two cheques purportedly issued by the applicant. The learned Magistrate, upon due consideration of the complaint, the documents appended thereto and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., found prima facie sufficient material to proceed against the applicant and accordingly issued summoning orders.
			4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the cheques in question were never issued in favour of the respondent and that the same were allegedly handed over to one Babbu for a different purpose, whose son was studying in the school run by the applicant’s wife. It is further submitted that the said cheques have been misused

¶3

2026:UHC:3400

¶4

by the respondent by way of overwriting and unauthorized presentation, particularly after the death of the said Babbu, and that the matter requires examination by a Forensic Science Laboratory. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The aforesaid submissions pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature. Whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, whether there has been any misuse or material alteration, and the evidentiary value of the writings on the cheques are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and can only be examined during the course of trial. At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out, which in the present case stands duly satisfied from the material on record. 6. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction or revisional scrutiny is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold, particularly when the allegations disclose the commission of an offence and the defence sought to be raised involves factual determination. The plea regarding forensic examination of the cheques is also a matter of defence, which the applicant is at liberty to raise before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. No jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate warranting interference by this Court. The summoning order reflects due application of mind and is based upon

¶5

2026:UHC:3400

¶6

sufficient material available on record.
7. Accordingly, the criminal misc.
application, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed. Applicant shall be at liberty to
raise all his pleas before the trial Court.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
05.05.2026
Arpan
ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.05 17:54:58 +05'30'

Lalit Kumar Giri v. Gulzar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar Giri v. Gulzar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nidhi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chand Khan Vs Mohd Anees

N Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abhishek Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pati Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand