Dismissed

Nadeem Abbas v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020A482/46497/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash orders summoning the applicant for trial under Section 138 N.I. Act. The single-judge bench held that questions of due debt or liability are factual issues for trial and the application was devoid of merit. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed as devoid of merit; no interference with impugned orders.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46497 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nadeem Abbas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi,Atul Pandey 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 order dated 3.9.2016 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 3411 of 2016 (Danish Zaidi Vs. Nadeem Abbas), under Section 138 of N.I. Act and order dated 2.8.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2019, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that two cheques No. 015522 dated 11.11.2015 and 015524 dated 19.11.2015 in the sums of Rs. 50,000/- 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 3.9.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 3.9.2016, the applicant had preferred a revision which too has been rejected vide order dated 2.8.2019

¶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 3.9.2016,

¶11

which order does not suffer from any illegality and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed. Moreover, the disputed question of existence of due debt or liability can not be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come, therefore the impugned orders do 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 and the revision against the said order has also been rightly rejected. 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 orders are 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

Nadeem Abbas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Abbas 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

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.

Chhatrapal Kashyap Vs State of Up and Anr.

Shoaib Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

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