Dismissed¶13

Chhatrapal Kashyap v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020A482/207/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhatrapal Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr., APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 207 of 2020, decided 6.1.2020 by Rajiv Gupta, J. — S.482 Cr.P.C. petition to quash summoning order dated 19.8.2019 and S.138 N.I. Act complaint (two dishonoured cheques of Rs. 25,500/- each; Complaint Case No. 368 of 2017, New No. 632 of 2018, Civil Judge (J.D.) Tilhar, Shahjahanpur) DISMISSED; Court held enquiry under Ss.200/202 CrPC valid and existence of due debt or liability a disputed question not decidable before evidence.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 19.8.2019, passed on the basis of the allegations in the complaint after the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, does not suffer from any illegality; the impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not call for any interference at this stage. ¶12

Chhatrapal Kashyap Vs State of Up and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 207 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Chhatrapal Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.8.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 368 of 2017, New No. 632 of 2018 (Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Chhatrapal), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Tilhar, DistrictShahjahanpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that two cheques No. 013665 dated 16.1.2017 and 013666 dated 16.2.2017 in the sums of Rs. 25,500/- each was issued by the applicant in favour of opposite party no. 2, however, on presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the bank and returned back. 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 u/s 138 of N.I. Act has been filed.

¶8

Learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 19.8.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no due debt or liability exists, therefore, proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn against the applicant.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 9.9.2019, which order does not suffer from any illegality. Moreover, the disputed question of existence of due debt or liability can not be

¶11

considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come, therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which do not suffer from any illegality. Moreover, the disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come, as such the impugned order is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference at this stage.

¶13

The present application u/s 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 KU

Chhatrapal Kashyap v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapal Kashyap v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akil Qureshi and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Raj Singh Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Shoaib Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Abbas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Sadh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another