Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020A482/781/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application to quash a summons order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite the applicant's claim that cheques were stolen and payment stopped, the court held that stopping payment on applicant's instructions does not invalidate proceedings, and the lower court order was legal.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the summons order and criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Smt. Anita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 781 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Anita Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ramji Singh Patel 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 16.9.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1694 of 2018 (Shobha Devi Vs. Anita Devi), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Lanka, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Varanasi.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the two cheques bearing Cheque No. 006470 dated 5.6.2018 and Cheque No. 006471 dated 7.6.2018 in the sums of Rs. 1,00,000/- each have been issued by the applicant, however, on presentation of the said cheques, the same were dishonoured by the bank and returned back. After the dishonour of the cheques, 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, had summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 16.9.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no said cheques were issued by the applicant and infact they have been stolen, as such the payment of the cheques was stopped by the applicant and thererefore, the proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act is bad in the eyes of law.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and 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, had summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Moreover, even if on the instructions of the

¶11

applicant, the payment of cheques has been stopped, proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against the applicant.

¶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, had summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as such the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Moreover, where the payment of the cheques on the instructions of the applicant has been stopped, proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against him, as such the order passed by the court below 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 :- 9.1.2020 KU

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Sanjay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anil Sahni Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep @ Neetu Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Smt. Asha Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another