Dismissed

Hitesh Bhasin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2021A482/9631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a summoning order in a cheque bounce case. The Court held that the complaint reasonably averred the applicant's role, and no error justified quashing. Leave was given for a bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to file bail application within two weeks for consideration.

Hitesh Bhasin Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9631 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Hitesh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed seeking the quashing of the summoning order dated 12.3.2019 allegedly served upon the applicant on 2.4.2021.

¶6

The counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is not the Managing Director of the company in question and in fact, he was appointed as Professional Director only. He has drawn my attention to the appointment letter which, according to the applicant, is for appointment of the applicant as a Professional Director. In sum and substance, counsel for the applicant says that the applicant is an employee of the company.

¶7

I have perused the complaint in question wherein it was specifically stated that the applicant is a Managing Director and was concerned with the day to day affairs of the company in question. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had issued a check amounting to Rs. 2 crores in favour of the complainant, which was returned as stop payment by the bank when presented which resulted in filing of the complaint and the consequential summoning

¶8

order. Based upon the averments made in the complaint, no error can be found in the summoning order.

¶9

The contention of the counsel for the applicant cannot be considered at this stage. The defence advanced by the counsel for the applicant may be available to the petitioner during the course of the trial.

¶10

No good ground is made out for interference in this application filed under Section 482 CrPC.

¶11

The application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the applicant appears before the concerned Court below and files bail application within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered, if possible, on the same day.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.6.2021 vinay

¶13

Digitally signed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia Date: 2021.06.11 10:11:59 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hitesh Bhasin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Bhasin 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

Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murari Lal Vs State of Up and Another

Michael Pani Vs State of Up and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Uttam Kumar and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another