The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that the complaint was not tenable as the applicant's employing company was not arrayed as a party in the case.
Criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge-1, Ghaziabad are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3025 of 2010
Applicant :- Yatendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sunil Vashisth
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned appearing on behalf of opposite party no.22 and perused the material brought on record.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the entire criminal proceedings of complaint Case No. 614 of 2009 (Sri Ram Trading Company v. Yatendra Sharma and another) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge-1,(J.D.), Ghaziabad.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the Company in which applicant was working has not been arrayed as party and thus the allegations levelled against the applicant is not tenable in the eye of law and in support of this contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the two judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Aneeta Hada v. State and Another, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 and Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and another reported in (2019) 3 SCC 797. Copies of the said judgement has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant before the Court which is taken on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
Accordingly, instant application is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.5.2019 ssm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed since the company where the applicant was employed was not arrayed as a party.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and another, (2019) 3 SCC 797Relied on¶8
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yatendra Sharma
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
