Dismissed

M/S.Sri Ram Corporation v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2019A482/22787/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order in a cheque bounce case, the court held that disputable-facts are not for the High Court. It dismissed the quash prayer, directing the applicant to file a discharge application under Sections 227/239/245 Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the order is dismissed with direction to file a discharge application before the Trial Court.

M/S.Sri Ram Corporation Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22787 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- M/S.Sri Ram Corporation Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.4.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut in Complaint Case No.2371 of 2019 (M/s Mahaveer Trade Links Vs. M/s Sri Ram Corporation), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut, pendiing in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was a monitory transaction between the parties and the applicant has given certain cheques by way of security to opposite party no.2. He further submitted that the opposite party no.2 had supplied some diamond which were not approved by the buyer then those diamonds were returned to the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 was asked to return the cheque, which were given as security to the opposite party no.2 and applicant made a request to opposite party no.2 to return cheques. He further submitted that the applicant had also issued a letter to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheques which was given as security, copy of which has been annexed on page 19 of the paper book.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submitted that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Sections 227, 239 and 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court raising all the grounds/grievances which have been taken in this application or which might have been taken, the trial court shall decide the discharge application within eight weeks from its filing by passing a speaking and detailed order.

¶9

Till the decision of the discharge application, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 19.6.2019 Mini

M/S.Sri Ram Corporation v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sri Ram Corporation v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Surat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Prakash @ Prem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Gaurav @ Prabal Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another