The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a summoning order issued against a Nainital resident in a cheque bounce case, holding that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before issuing process.
Justice Ashish Naithani observed that when an accused lives outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed, the magistrate must first conduct a preliminary inquiry or investigation before summoning the person.
Read also:- Gym Review Row Reaches Court: Orissa High Court Refuses Relief in Police Harassment Allegations Case
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Bhawan Dutt Bhatt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with cheque dishonour.
According to the complaint, Bhatt alleged that he had paid ₹20 lakh in cash to Bhim Singh for the construction of a residential house. However, when the construction was allegedly not carried out, the applicant issued two cheques of ₹10 lakh each dated 18 June 2022.
The complainant stated that when the cheques were presented to the bank, they were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. After serving a statutory legal notice and not receiving payment, Bhatt filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Khatima in Udham Singh Nagar district.
The magistrate subsequently issued a summoning order on 29 July 2022, directing Bhim Singh to face trial.
Read also:- MP High Court Refuses Bail in Gwalior Case Where Constable Was Dragged on Car Bonnet During NSG Drill
Challenge Before the High Court
Bhim Singh approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings.
His counsel argued that the order was legally flawed because Singh is a resident of Nainital district, while the complaint was filed in Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar.
Under the law, when the accused resides outside the court’s jurisdiction, the magistrate must first postpone the issuance of summons and conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation under Section 202 CrPC.
The applicant also contended that the order was passed mechanically and did not reflect proper judicial consideration.
The complainant, however, opposed the plea and argued that the complaint contained all necessary ingredients of an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, including issuance of cheques, dishonour, legal notice, and non-payment.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Allows Minor to Use Mother’s Surname in Birth Certificate, Orders Fresh Record
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the High Court clarified that the dispute before it was not about the truth of the allegations but about the legal validity of the summoning order.
Justice Naithani emphasized that Section 202 CrPC contains a mandatory safeguard designed to prevent individuals living outside a court’s territorial jurisdiction from being summoned without basic verification of the complaint.
“The proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that before issuance of process, the Magistrate shall postpone the same and either conduct an enquiry himself or direct an investigation,” the Court observed.
The Court noted that a review of the summoning order showed no reference to Section 202 CrPC and no indication that any inquiry or investigation had been carried out before issuing summons.
According to the Court, this omission went to the root of the matter, making the order legally unsustainable.
Read also:- Supreme Court Withdraws 3 Criminal Revisions from Allahabad HC Over Delay in 1994 Murder Case Trial
Court’s Decision
Allowing the application, the High Court held that the summoning order dated 29 July 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, suffered from non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 CrPC.
The Court ruled that continuation of the criminal proceedings based on such an order would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“The summoning order… is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of the said complaint case are also quashed,” the Court ordered.
However, the Court clarified that the complainant is free to pursue legal remedies afresh, and the magistrate may proceed again in accordance with law after properly complying with Section 202 CrPC.
Case Title: Bhim Singh vs. Bhawan Dutt Bhatt
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Application No. 1721 of 2022
Decision Date: 27 February 2026
