Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. Aiman Zaidi

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022/3131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings in a Section 138 NI Act case was allowed. The Court held that since the cheque was altered without the drawer's signature, it was invalid, so no proceedings could have been instituted.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed. Impugned proceedings in Complaint Case No.9484 of 2019 and orders dated 28.02.2020 and 17.10.2020 quashed.

Rahul Kumar Vs Aiman Zaidi — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3131 of 2020 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- Aiman Zaidi Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar

¶2

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Inam Uddin Ahmed,Nadeem Murtaza,Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripath

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 2-State, as well as Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1, and gone through the record.

¶5

By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed for quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.9484 of 2019 (Aiman Zaidi Vs. Rahul Kumar), pending in the Court of Additional Court No. 3, Lucknow and for quashing of the orders dated 28.02.2020 and 17.10.2020 respectively passed in the said case.

¶6

As it comes out, bank returned Cheque No.000052, allegedly drawn by the applicant, in favour of respondent no. 1, Aiman Zaidai on the ground that there is alteration in the cheque and the drawers signatures are not there on the alteration. Thus, the instrument, which was in the hands of the respondent no. 1, was not a valid instrument. If the alteration had been made by holder of the cheque, then he could not be said to be the holder in due course under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act"). No proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act can be instituted for dishonour of cheque, which is not a valid cheque. When the alteration in the cheque is made by the drawee, there is no question of honouring the cheque by the bank and the bank had refused to honour the cheque on the ground that alteration did not have the drawers signatures. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that neither the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act could have been instituted nor cognizable could have been taken.

¶7

In view thereof, the application is hereby allowed. Consequently , the impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶8

Order Date :- 22.7.2022 MVS/-

¶9

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.07.26 10:36:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Kumar v. Aiman Zaidi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. Aiman Zaidi

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

Madik Manik Lal Vs State of U.P.and 6 Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Tripathi @ Bauwan Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Vishal Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nitin Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Hari Shankar @ Shiv Shankar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Atul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. and Ors.