The High Court rejected an application u/s 482 CrPC seeking to quash a summoning order in a cheque bounce case, holding that no illegality or infirmity existed and the offence was clearly made out.
The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed as it was devoid of merit.
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. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35378 of 2019
Applicant :- Digvijay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Satyawan Shahi
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 18.8.2018 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2763 of 2017 (Kubair Singh vs. Digvijay Singh), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Pipri, District- Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Duddhi, Sonbhadra.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant has issued a Cheque No. 000100 amounting to Rs. 33,68,000/- dated 1.4.2017 to Opposite Party No.2., however, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured. After the dishonour of the cheque, a notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment however, despite being noticed the cheque amount has not been paid to the opposite party no. 2, as such the present complaint has been filed.
On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 18.8.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the impugned order and has submitted that learned Magistrate after making requisite enquiry and considering the fact that despite being noticed, the applicant has failed to make good the payment of the cheque amount, as such offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is clearly attracted against the applicant and there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court
below.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that learned Magistrate after considering the allegations made in the complaint and making requisite enquiry has summoned the applicant to face trial as he failed to make good the payment of the cheque amount even despite being noticed, as such offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is clearly made out against the applicant. The impugned order passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.
The present application under Section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 KU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the summoning order in a cheque bounce case where no illegality or infirmity was pointed out by the applicant.
Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is clearly made out against the applicant despite issues but with no miscarriage of justice shown.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Digvijay Singh
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
