Dismissed

Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020A227/10176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 petition, the petitioner sought to quash summons orders under Section 138 NI Act, alleging the cheque was stolen and no debt existed. The Court held disputed debt is an evidentiary matter for trial, absent in a summary proceeding, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Article 227 quashing the summoning orders was dismissed.

Rishipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10176 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rishipal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sunil Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Shri Sunil Dubey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2019 (Shri Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Bulandshahar in Criminal Complaint No. 4365 of 2018 (Naresh Chand Vs. Rishipal), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing no. 271856 in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque before the Bank, it was dishonoured and returned back.

¶9

After dishonour of the cheque, a legal notice was sent to the petitioner to make good the payment of the cheque amount, however, despite being noticed, the petitioner has not made good the payment of the cheque amount, as such, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against the petitioner.

¶10

On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the complaint and making requisite enquiry under Sections 200 CrPC and 202 CrPC, has summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 10.12.2018.

¶11

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.12.2018, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the court of Sessions Judge, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2019.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the said cheque has never been issued by the petitioner and the same has been stolen by the Opposite Party No.2 and no due debt or liability exists, as such, proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cant not be drawn against him.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as Shri Sunil Dubey, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 has submitted that learned Magistrate, on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 CrPC and 202 CrPC, has passed the impugned order.

¶14

Learned AGA has further submitted that defence taken by learned counsel for the applicant that the cheque in question has never been issued by him and no due debt or liability exists, can not be considered by this Court at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that learned Magistrate, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial. Moreover, disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come. The impugned summoning order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and do not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.

¶16

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Nadim

Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

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

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Malwati and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Sagar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Rachna Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others