In an application under Section 482 CrPC quashing a summoning order for a cheque dishonour case, the court held that stopping cheque payment post-loss does not negate Section 138 liability. Facts remain for trial, so the application was dismissed.
The application was dismissed and the impugned summoning order was set aside or allowed to stand.
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. - 41348 of 2019
Applicant :- Ravi Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Sharma,Rajiv Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 30.08.2019, by which the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cheque, in question, has been lost and in this regard, an FIR has been lodged. Subsequently, the applicant directed the Bank to stop the payment of the said cheque, therefore, no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act would be made out against him and the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has submitted that from the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 and on presentation of the said cheque before the Bank, the same was dishonoured and a legal notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment, however, despite being noticed, the applicant has not made good the payment of the cheque amount and therefore, the applicant has rightly been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that even if the payment of the cheque amount has been stopped by the applicant, provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument would be attracted against the applicant. The other disputed question of fact cannot be determined at this stage by this Court, when the evidence is yet to come.
In view of the above, impugned summoning order dated 30.08.2019 is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.
Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.11.2019/Nadim
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is exempted from trial under Section 138 NI Act merely because cheque payment was stopped post-loss.
Whether facts disputed in the application justify quashing a summoning order under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the impugned summoning order dated 30.08.2019 is legal and called for interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Gupta
State of U.P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
