Dismissed

Naresh Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2019A482/40249/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the applicant's plea to quash the summoning order in a cheque dishonour case. The Court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains attracted even with a stop payment, especially where the cheque was not honoured after notice.

What did the court decide?

The application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the impugned summoning order was held to be just, proper, and legal.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40249 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Naresh Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.9.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2019 and summoning order dated 30.3.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Aligarh as well as entire proceeding of complaint case No. 2840 of 2018, M/S Surendra Pal Sharma Vs. Naresh Pal Singh, under section 138 of N.I. Act P.S. Sasni Gate, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that a cheque no. 014295 dated 13.8.2018 for a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs was given by the applicant to O.P. No.2, however, on presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured. The O.P. No.2. sent a notice to the applicant to make good payment of the said cheque, however, despite being noticed, the payment of the said cheque has not been made by the applicant to O.P. No.2 and as such a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act has been filed by the O.P. No.2. Learned magistrate after considering the allegation made in the complaint and after making requisite enquiry has summoned the applicant to face trial vide order dated 20.9.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has made stop payment of the cheque as such the proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted. The complaint has also been filed with delay, therefore, the order summoning the applicant is bad in the eyes of law.

¶9

Per contra, leaned A.G.A has supported the impugned order passed by court below and has submitted that even where the payment has been stopped by the applicant, the provisions of section 138 of N.I. Act are clearly attracted, moreover, he has drawn attention of the Court to the proviso to section 142 of N.I.Act wherein it has been clearly provided that where the complaint has been filed with a delay, the magistrate may take cognizance of the offence, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel

¶11

for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the despite being noticed, the applicant has not make good payment of the cheque and even in the case of stop payment the provisions of section 138 of N.I. Act are clearly attracted and considering the proviso to section 142 of N.I. Act, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by learned magistrate. The impugned order being just, proper and legal do not call for any interference at this stage.

¶12

The application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.11.2019 R

Naresh Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Pal 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

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Viddhya Shanker @ Bhagat Upadhayay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhakar Mishra @ Saurabh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Digvijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakshaman Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.