Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1436/2025 of BANDANA SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 11 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1436/2025 Bandana Sharma --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Amanjot
UKHC010127592025
2026:UHC:7118
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1436/2025
Bandana Sharma
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The instant C528 application is preferred by the applicant ‘Bandana Sharma’ challenging the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 660 of 2025 titled as Anil Valecha vs. Bandana Sharma pending in the court of ACJM, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is a proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceeding is being challenged on the ground that the dispute in fact arising out of matrimonial one since the applicant have some dispute with her husband Prakash Valecha and the cheque in question was in fact arising out of a matrimonial dispute. He further submits that the recovery suit is also filed by the respondent, who is the younger brother of the husband of the applicant, therefore, the proceeding as initiated under section 138 of N.I. Act is completely an abuse of process of law.
5. The argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is completely misconceived since the proceeding under the N.I. Act, is governed by a special Act and it has nothing to do either with the matrimonial dispute or the recovery suit and is independent one. In a 138 N.I. Act proceeding the Trial Court has to examine whether there is a legally enforceable UKHC010127592025
2026:UHC:7118 debt or not and there is a presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act against the applicant, who issued the cheque.
6. All the grounds as taken in this petition is challenging the proceeding are completely the subject matter of the trial and proceeding cannot be quashed on these ground and the applicant has all liberty to raise all defence plea before the Trial Court.
7. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 11.08.2026 PR