Dismissed

Idrees v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2020A482/47863/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash a summons and NBW in a cheque dishonour case. The Court held that the disputed question of debt liability could not be considered at this stage and the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality.

What did the court decide?

The application petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. The impugned NBW and summoning order stood upheld.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47863 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Idrees Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Ganga Rani,Shashank Singh 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 NBW dated 18.11.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 37 of 2019, (Majid Vs. Idrees), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued a cheque bearing no. 003377 dated 30.12.2018 in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque before the Bank, it was dishonoured and returned back.

¶8

After dishonour of the cheque, 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 21.10.2019.

¶10

Pursuant to the said summoning order dated 21.10.2019, the applicant did not appear before the court below, as such, NBW has been issued against him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no due debt or liability exists, as such, proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can not be initiated against the applicant.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned summoning order and has submitted 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.

¶13

Learned AGA has further submitted that disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come, as such, impugned summoning order is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court. 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 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2020 Nadim

Idrees v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idrees 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

Junaid Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Subham Singh @ Chikki and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saudani Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem Vs State of U.P. and Another