Dismissed

Shakeel Ahmad Beg v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2019A482/38689/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court dismissed the application, holding that the ingredients of Section 138 were met as the applicant failed to pay the cheque amount despite notice and an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings was dismissed; interim order stands discharged.

Shakeel Ahmad Beg Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38689 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmad Beg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Vats

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 38718 of 2017 (Mohd. Vakeel Shaikh @ Vs. Shakeel Ahmad Beg), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.9.2019 has passed an order on the undertaking given by the applicant that a sum of Rs. 11,75,000/- shall be paid by him to the opposite party no. 2 through a demand draft by 25.11.2019, however both the parties are present before the Court and applicant has failed to pay the amount of Rs. 11,75,000/- through a demand draft.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued cheques in favour of opposite party no. 2, however, on presentation, the said cheques were not honoured and returned back by the bank. After the dishonour of the cheques, a notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment however, despite being noticed the due amount was not paid as such, the present complaint has been filed.

¶9

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 7.10.2017.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the order passed by the trial court.

¶11

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and has submitted that on dishonour of the cheque, the applicant was noticed to make good the payment of the cheque amount, yet applicant failed to make good the payment. Even

¶12

before this Court the applicant had given an undertaking that he shall pay the amount of Rs. 11,75,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 but despite his assurance the amount has not been paid as such the ingredients of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is clearly made out against the applicant and he has rightly been summoned to face trial.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that despite being noticed, the applicant has failed to make good the payment to the opposite party no. 2 and from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., offence is made out against the applicant as such he has rightly been summoned to face trial u/s 138 of N.I. Act, which order do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as such no interference is required to be made at this stage.

¶14

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.11.2019 KU

Shakeel Ahmad Beg v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmad Beg 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

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Pratima Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daljeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another