Dismissed

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022A482/11274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings arising from a dishonoured cheque. The court held that defences regarding the loss of the cheque or absence of liability are not tenable at the pre-trial stage when a valid dishonour is admitted.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings and setting aside summoning order under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed.

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11274 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.D. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant prays for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 483 of 2019, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hathras as well as summoning order dated 17.9.2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant never issued a cheque in question to opposite party No. 2 and cheque in question was lost somewhere and in this regard, applicant on 20.7.2019 gave an application to the Bank concerned but inspite of that when on 3.9.2019, cheque was presented by opposite party No. 2 in the bank, it was dishonoured. He further states that he has no liability against opposite party No. 2 and therefore, there is no question arose to issue any cheque to him and therefore, court below committed illegality while summoning the applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that admittedly there was signature of the applicant on cheque in question and when opposite party No. 2 submitted the same in the bank, it was dishonoured and perusal of the compliant shows that it was issued by applicant to opposite party No. 2 against an enforceable debt and further the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant that his cheque in question was lost somewhere and later on, it was presented by the opposite party No. 2 in the bank, it cannot be appreciated at this stage and trial court rightly summoned the applicants, therefore, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶10

The law in respect of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court is settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court and by

¶11

now, it has been settled that defence taken by the applicant cannot be appreciated at this stage. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the cheque in question was lost somewhere and he informed the bank in this regard, cannot be appreciated at this stage. As admittedly on cheque in question, there was signature of applicant and when it was presented by opposite party no. 2 in the bank the same was dishonoured, therefore, I find no illegality in the summoning order passed against the applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Ankita

¶14

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.14 12:21:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh 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

Raju and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs Sudhanshu Gupta

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhole Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gauri Shankar @ Raju Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.and Another