Dismissed

M/S Shanti Sheetgrah Pvt. . Limited and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022A482/23366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the legal notice was sent within one month of the complainant receiving information about the cheque dishonour from the bank. Allegations that the bank provided earlier information were rejected as reliance was placed on a photocopy

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Shanti Sheetgrah Pvt. . Limited and 2 Others Vs State… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23366 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- M/S Shanti Sheetgrah Pvt . Limited And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned Brief Holder for the Staterespondent.

¶6

By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants prays for quashing the proceeding of complaint case No. 721 of 2022, under Section 138 N.I. Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun as well as summoning order dated 1.6.2022.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on the basis of false and frivolous facts. He next submitted that even the legal notice which was sent by opposite party no. 2 to applicants is not in accordance with law and it has been sent belatedly after one month from the date of receiving information with regard to the dishonour of cheque in question. He next submitted that as per the information furnished by Bank which is annexed as anneure-7 opposite party no. 2 has received the dishonoured cheque on 1.10.2021 but inspite of that he sent legal notice to applicant on 8.11.2021 which is beyond one month period of time and therefore, notice was time barred and therefore, summoning order passed against the applicants is bad.

¶8

Per contra learned counsel for the applicants submitted that from the perusal of the complaint it is apparent that notice regarding dishonour of the cheque was received by the opposite party no. 2 by the Bank on 3.11.2021 and the notice was sent to the applicants on 8.11.2021 which is well within one month, therefore, it cannot be said that legal notice sent by opposite party no. 2 was time barred. He next submitted that documents of the Bank annexed by opposite party no. 2 as annexure 7 is not the original document but is the photocopy of the Bank infromation and no reliance can be placed on such document, at this stage and therefore, the instant application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

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

¶10

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the cheque in question issued by applicants to opposite party no. 2 when presented by opposite party no. 2 in the Bank then it was dishonoured but when he did not receive any information regarding honour and dishonour of the cheque from the Bank then opposite party no. 2 approached the Bank on 3rd November, 2021 and on 3rd November, Bank informed him that cheque presented by him was dishonoured and information in this regard has been provided to him on 23.9.2021, therefore, from the perusal of the complaint it appears that the information regarding dishonour of the cheque in question was received by the opposite party no. 2 on 3rd November, 2021 and notice was sent on 8.11.2021 i.e. within one month from the date of receiving the information from Bank, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice given by opposite party no. 2 was time barred.

¶11

The counsel for the applicants although vehemently submitted that he received an information from the Bank which is annexed as annexure 7 to the affidavit and as per the information given by the Bank dishonoured cheque was handed over to the opposite party no. 2 on 1st October, 2021 and therefore, from this angle the notice which was sent on 8.11.2021 is beyond time as it was sent after one month from the date of receiving information regarding dishonoured cheque. But in my view, at this stage, on the basis of the document provided by Bank, no finding in this regard can be recorded as cheque issued by the applicants was dishnoured when presented by opposite party no. 2 in the Bank, therefore, as per Section 139 of N.I. Act the presumption is against the drawer. Further, the document annexed as annexure no. 7 is a photocopy of the Bank letter which was provided by the Bank to the applicants, therefore, at this stage no reliance can be placed on such document. The veracity and validity of the document can only be ascertained by trial court during trial.

¶12

Therefore, in view of the above, I find no merit in the present case. Accordingly, the instant application being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Ankita

¶14

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.09 16:08:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Shanti Sheetgrah Pvt. . Limited and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Shanti Sheetgrah Pvt. . Limited and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navin Kumar Bhandari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Athar Ashraf and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Saurabh Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brijraj Singh Vs State of U.P and 4 Others

Smt. Rahnuma Begum Vs State of U.P. and Another