Dismissed

Subhash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2020A227/1114/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of a summoning order and a criminal revision order. The holder of office of the lower courts found no illegality or irregularity, noting that a prima facie case was made out based on evidence regarding a dishonoured cheque and a sale deed transaction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filing for quashing of the summoning and revisional orders is dismissed.

Subhash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1114 of 2020 Petitioner :- Subhash Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Rai,Abhijeet Pratap Singh

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present petition has been filed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned summoning order dated 8.4.2016 ( annexure no.-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Sardhana, Meerut in complaint case no. 605 of 2015 ( Mohar Singh Vs.Smt. Sona and another) for the offences of section 420 I.P.C. police station Sardhana District Meerut as well as judgment and order dated 28.11.2019 (annexure no. -6) passed by Additional Sessions Judge court no. 5, Meerut in criminal revision no. 482 of 2017 ( Subhash vs.Mohar Singh and another).

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a sale deed was executed in the name of Smt.Sona Devi who has also lodged an F.I.R. against the executants of sale deed Hosiyar Singh and Mohar Singh through an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In counterblast, the respondent no. 2 Mohar Singh has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has issued a cheque of Rs. 1,10,000/- in favour of respondent no. 2 Mohar Singh. The same has not been presented before the bank and got dishonoured for filing application under section 138 N.I. Act. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not committed any cheating and he has no concern with the alleged sale deed. Smt. Sona Devi is not family member of the petitioner. Merely on the basis of issuing a cheque, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The summoning order is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has preferred a criminal revision against the summoning order dated 8.4.2016 which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide its judgement and order dated 28.11.2019. The judgement and order passed by lower revisional court is not in accordance with law. No offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that in complaint, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner that the petitioner and co-accused Smt. Sona Devi got prepared the sale deed and before executing the sale deed only Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 2. The petitioner assured the opp. party no. 2 to pay rest amount after 4-5 days of the alleged sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs. 1,10,000/- in favour of the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. has supported the complaint version and he has also examined his son Pramod Kumar in support of complaint version under section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the petitioner and co-accused Smt. Sona devi to face trial. Learned revisional court also did not find any illegality or irregularity in the summoning order and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶10

A perusal of record shows that the petitioner has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint, the respondent no. 2 has made allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Smt.Sona Devi to get executed the sale deed only paying of Rs. 50,000/-. In complaint, it has been mentioned that petitioner has assured the complainant / respondent no. 2 to pay rest amount of sale deed after 4-5 days and he also issued a cheque of Rs. 1,10,000/- in favour of respondent no. 2. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the petitioner. The petitioner has also preferred a criminal revision no. 482 of 2017 against the summoning order which was dismissed by lower revisional court. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgement and orders passed by courts below. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. This petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.2.2020/Gss

Subhash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharif Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Veera Alias Balbeer Vs State of U.P.

Nihal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Panna Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another