Dismissed

Naveen Chauhan v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2020A482/7956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order in a case under Section 138 N.I. Act. The learned Judge declined to quash the order, holding that disputed questions of fact regarding the notice and timeline require trial. However, the applicant was granted interim relief to apply for bail and avoid coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicant granted 30 days to apply for bail without coercive action.

Naveen Chauhan Vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7956 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Naveen Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suhas Subhash Mehta,Budhi Sagar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the learned J.M.Chhata, District Mathura in Complaint Case No. 54 of 2018 (Narendra Singh Proprietor Harendra Contractor Vs. Navin Chauhan Malik Hotel Shiva), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, pending in the court of learned Judicial magistrate, District Mathura.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the genesis of the complaint case arises from a transaction of amount of Rs. 2.0 lakhs for which different cheques were issued by the applicant for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of security. In the complaint it has been mentioned that the notice to the applicant was sent on 08.03.2018. It is crystal clear that the complaint is immature because the complaint was filed on 07.04.2018 as well as notice was returned unserved on 07.04.2018 itself so if any cause of action would have arisen, it would be after 15 days from 07.04.2018. It is also submitted that as per provision of Section 138(c) of the N.I.Act it is crystal clear that after service of notice payee is liable to make payment or to reply.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed and submitted that as per allegation of complaint, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicants is made out.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C.

¶11

866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned summoning order dated 11.07.2018, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶13

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.6.2020 MAA/-

Naveen Chauhan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Chauhan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laturi Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratibha Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogindra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rafiq Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another