Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2019A482/42724/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summons order in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that disputed factual questions regarding notice and debt liability cannot be decided at the pre-trial stage.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summons order in Com. Case No. 288 of 2018.

Lakshaman Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42724 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lakshaman Prasad Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Vijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 of the summoning order dated 23.05.2018, order dated 11.10.2019 by which proceedings of under Section 82 initiated against the applicant as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.288 of 2018 (Ram Milan Vs. Lakshaman Prasad Verma), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant has issued a Cheque No.023011 amounting to Rs.2,70,000/- dated 13.03.2018 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 due amount was not paid as such, the present complaint has been filed.

¶8

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 passed the summoning order against the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no notice was served upon him and as also no due debt or liability exists.

¶10

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and submitted that learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC has passed the summoning order against the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The disputed question of fact whether the notice has been served and the existence of any due debt or liability cannot be decided at this

¶11

stage when the evidence is yet to come.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The disputed question of fact whether the notice has been served and the existence of any due debt or liability cannot be decided at this stage when the evidence is yet to come. As such impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference.

¶13

The present application under Section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Zafar

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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