Dismissed

Devendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2022A482/25491/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings and setting aside summons orders in a Section 138 NI Act case. The court held that factual disputes regarding consideration are triable facts and did not find ground to quash the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaint case and summoning orders dismissed. The criminal proceedings and summons orders stand affirmed.

Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anothers — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25491 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 143 of 2020 as well as summoning order dated 26.02.2020 and order dated 28.01.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no. 2. He has committed no offence. He further submitted that no consideration remained to be paid in favour of informant and cheque, if any, is without consideration. Learned Magistrate without application of mind summon the witnesses. It is further submitted that a complaint case, filed earlier, was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the court concerned, later on, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as time barred, which has been allowed without providing any opportunity of

¶8

hearing to the applicant on 5 Limitation Act and summoned the accused-applicant. He further argued that a dispute arose in respect of a sale deed which is not cancelled, thus, unless and until, it is cancelled presumption in favour of vendee. He further submitted that in respect of alleged sale deed, any amount remains unpaid, he could have file cancellation of sale deed or recovery suit. The said deed speaks that sale amount has already been paid to the informant. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court dated 16.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3681-3682 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21326-21327 of 2019) Rattan Singh and others vs. Nirmal Gill and others with Civil Appeal Nos. 3683-3684 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29775-29776 of 2019) Inder Pal Singh and another vs. Nirmal Gil and others etc.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the application and submitted that issuance of cheques has not been denied anywhere by the applicant. The applicant issued one cheque of Rs.2,60,000/- and another cheque of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the informant and cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- came to be dishonoured due to stoppage of payment. The complainant issued a notice to the applicant but no response has been given, thereafter, a complaint was filed against the accused-applicant and he has been summoned by learned Magistrate to face trial.

¶10

Admittedly, sale deed has been executed by the informant in favour of accused-applicant and

¶11

cheque was issued by the applicant which has been dishonoured. Submissions, whether cheque was issued for consideration of sale or for consideration of sale deed has already been paid by the applicant, is a matter of evidence which can only be determined after the evidence is adduced by both the parties. The judgement cited by accused-applicant is not in favour of his contention, it is on different facts and issues, thus, it does not help the applicant in any manner.

¶12

Upon overall consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I do not see any good ground warranting interference in the matter.

¶13

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.3.2022 Manoj

¶15

Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.03.14 17:34:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irshad and 13 Others Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others

Pramila Vs State of U.P and 4 Others

Jafruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

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