Dismissed

Trilok Chand Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/1348/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an order summoning the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding the order was legal as the applicant waived the hearing by non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed; impugned order dated 21.08.2019 was upheld.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1348 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Trilok Chand Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Babboo Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 2672 of 2015, (J & P Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Trilok Chandra Sharma), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.02, Allahabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued six cheques bearing nos. 966295 dated 13.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, 966296 dated 15.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 966297 dated 18.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, 966298 dated 21.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 966299 dated 24.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/and 966300 dated 30.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the Opposite Party No.2. On presentation of the said cheques before the Bank, the same was dishonoured.

¶8

After dishonour of the cheques, a legal notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment of the cheque amount, however, despite being noticed, the applicant 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 applicant.

¶9

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 applicant to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 16.05.2018.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the said summoning order dated 16.05.2018, the applicant had preferred an Application U/s 482 CrPC No.19133 of 2018 (Trilok Chand Sharma Vs. Stat of U.P. and another), by which the applicant was directed to raise all his grievance before the court below by moving discharge application vide order dated 01.06.2018.

¶11

Pursuant to the said order dated 01.06.2018, applicant moved a discharge application, which has too been rejected by the court below vide order dated 21.08.2019.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the impugned order and has submitted that the applicant has not been given proper opportunity of hearing before the court below.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has supported the impugned order and has submitted that learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the complaint and making requisite enquiry, has summoned the applicant. The applicant was given reasonable opportunity of hearing but he deliberately did not appear to press his discharge application. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the complaint and making requisite enquiry, has summoned the applicant and the impugned order was passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the applicant, however, despite being given several opportunity of hearing to the applicant, he did not appear before the court below to press his discharge application and he kept dilly dallying. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire allegations and the material on record passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The impugned order passed by the court below is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶15

Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 Nadim

Trilok Chand Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trilok Chand Sharma 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

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Anita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Narendra Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Santosh Yadav @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another