Dismissed

Surendra Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021A482/20831/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of summoning and trial orders in a cheque bounce case. The Court held that factual disputes precluded interference at this stage, as evidence appraisal lies with the trial court.

What did the court decide?

No interference in the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the application lacked merit.

Surendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20831 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 27.11.2020 passed by Presiding Officer to Additional Court, Jhansi and order dated 08.09.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2020 (Surendra Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 8112 of 2020 (Yash Emporium Vs. Surendra Kumar Rai), under Section - 138 N.I. Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, subsequent to the closure report being submitted by the police pursuant to the FIR lodged by the opposite party dated 10.09.2020, the complaint under Section 138 NI Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been lodged. Referring to the FIR allegation as also the FIR lodged by the applicant with respect to the lost cheques, it has been vehemently urged that the complaint allegations are inherently improbable.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the present applicant and submitted that no issue of fact may be examined or concluded in these proceedings.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, both sides have made allegations against each other. It is not possible to reach any firm conclusion as to the true events in absence of appraisal of evidence. That stage lies before the forum available to the applicant in the proceedings that are still pending before the learned court below.

¶10

Leaving all courses open to the applicant in those proceedings, no ground made out to offer any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Present application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 29.11.2021 Abhilash

Surendra Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Rai 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

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharjeel Imam Vs State of U.P.

Moti Lal Pal Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Shivani Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaj Khan Vs State of U.P..and Another