Dismissed

Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019A482/34147/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of summons order in a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that the second presentation of the cheque after the first dishonour created a fresh cause of action, validating the complaint timeline. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Vikas Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 25.11.2019 Delivered On:- 10.12.2019

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34147 of 2011

¶4

Applicant :- Vikas Pratap Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,M.S. Solanki

¶6

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶7

1. Although rejoinder affidavit has not been filed on behalf of applicant yet Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant states that he is ready to argue the matter.

¶8

2. Heard Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶9

3. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 324 of 2011 (Sandeep Gava Vs. Vikas Pratap Singh Chauhan), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Agra.

¶10

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that first time legal notice was sent on 09.09.2010 but no complaint was filed. Second legal notice was sent on 18.02.2011 after expiry of the prescribed period provided under Negotiable Instruments Act. Since period for sending legal notice has been expired at the time of sending of second legal notice, thus cause of action was not available to file the complaint, therefore, summoning order passed in the matter is illegal and without jurisdiction. No cause of action was available to the opposite party no. 2 to file present

¶11

¶12

complaint.

¶13

5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that although first notice was sent on 09.09.2010 but on the assurance of applicant, cheque in question was again presented before the Bank concerned on 04.02.2011 for encashment. Again it was dishonoured then a fresh legal notice was sent on 18.02.2011. Thus, cause of action was available in the present matter which shall be calculated from the date of sending of second legal notice. Complaint was well maintainable. Summoning order passed in the matter is not illegal.

¶14

6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶15

7. In this matter, as is evident from the record, on dishonour of cheque, first time legal notice was sent on 09.09.2010. Although no complaint was filed and on the assurance given by the applicant again cheque in question was presented before the Bank concerned for encashment. Again cheque in question was not encashed and was returned. Complainant / opposite party no. 2 again send legal notice on 18.02.2011 within the prescribed period for sending the legal notice. Since a cheque can be presented on number of times during its validity period for encashment, therefore, presentation of the cheque in question second time on the assurance of applicant will accrue fresh cause of action. Period for filing the complaint in the present matter shall not be counted from the date of sending of first legal notice but from the date of sending of second legal notice. In the present matter, complaint was filed well within the prescribed period provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cause of action for filing the complaint was available to the opposite party no. 2 / complainant. Summoning order passed in the matter is not Illegal. Submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable.

¶16

¶17

8. Thus, on close scrutiny of entire evidence at this stage, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order. Grounds taken in the application to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case are not liable to be accepted. Application being devoid of merits is not liable to be allowed.

¶18

9. Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :-10.12.2019

¶20

Sanjeet

Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Pratap Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Dixit Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ram Sajiwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Mushtafa Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Girraj Kishore @ Chunmun and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another