Dismissed¶10

Satendra Chauhan v. Sonu Kumar

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2026C528/442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing/miscellaneous application in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint (Haridwar) dismissed; accused's application under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of complainant's bank entries for June 2017-June 2018 held rightly rejected by Judicial Magistrate/Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) by order dated 30.04.2024; Sessions Judge, Haridwar's order dated 12.08.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2024 left undisturbed; no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

The evidence collected was placed before the court below, which, after applying its judicial mind, rightly rejected the applicant's application under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C.; the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be faulted. ¶8

Satendra Chauhan Vs Sonu Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal misc. application seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), District Haridwar (rejecting the applicant's application under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C.) and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 953 of 2019 (now No. 672 of 2023) should be allowed. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), District Haridwar.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, including the order dated 12.08.2024 of the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2024.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous application (quashing petition) dismissed. The applicant-accused, Satendra Chauhan, in Complaint Case No. 953 of 2019 (renumbered as Complaint Case No. 672 of 2023), Sonu Kumar Vs. Satendra Chauhan, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had sought quashing of (i) the order dated 30.04.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate/Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), District Haridwar, rejecting his application under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C. by which he sought a direction to the complainant to file his bank entries for June 2017 to June 2018 to show the complainant's status and whether he had withdrawn money from his bank account and given it to the accused, and (ii) the order dated 12.08.2024 of the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2024, along with the entire complaint proceedings pending before the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar. Holding that the court below had applied its judicial mind and rightly rejected the Sections 311/91 application, and finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the application.

¶1

No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			C-528 No. 442 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Ms. Ruhani Sahani, learned counsel for the applicant. (through V.C.) 2. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. (through V.C.) 3. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to quash and set-aside the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/ Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 953 of 2019 (Now Complaint Case No. 672 of 2023), Sonu Kumar Vs. Satendra Chauhan, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 953 of 2019 (Now Complaint Case No. 672 of 2023), Sonu Kumar Vs. Satendra Chauhan, pending in the court of learned 2^ndAdditional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar and also the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2024. 4. In this case, applicant accused have moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate concerned for directing the complainant to file his bank entries for the period June, 2017 to June, 2018 so that it could be shown as to what is the status of the complainant and whether he has given any money to the applicant accused by withdrawing it from his bank account.
			5. Learned counsel for the complaint would submit that it is not the case of the complainant that after withdrawing the amount from his bank, he has paid it to the applicant accused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would

¶2

submit that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case and there is no evidence as such against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, without application of mind, has passed the order dated 30.04.2024. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 reveals that the evidence collected was placed before the learned court below, which, after applying its judicial mind, has rightly rejected the application of the applicant under Section 311 and 91 of Cr.P.C.
9. The court concerned has considered & discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned cannot be faulted. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/ Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 953 of 2019 (Now Complaint Case No. 672 of 2023), Sonu Kumar Vs. Satendra Chauhan, under Section 138 of Negotiable I nstruments Act and also the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2024. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 06.05.2026 Ujjwal

Satendra Chauhan v. Sonu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Chauhan v. Sonu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Giri Vs Gulzar

N Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abhishek Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shubham Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Gaira Alias Rakku Vs State of Uttarakhand