Karnulla (Tahir) filed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a summoning order in a cheque bounce case held prima facie made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5017 of 2022 Applicant :- Tahir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.10.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge-II (J.D.)/J.M., Amroha and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1146 of 2021 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. K.T.R. Paneer Udhyog Prop. Tahir), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Didauli, Amorha pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge-II (J.D.)/J.M., Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of totally wrong facts, opposite party no.2 lodged impugned complaint against the applicant. He further submitted that the cheque was issued by applicant not for any debt but, it was issued as a security and without perusing the record of the case, in routine manner, summoning order was passed against the applicant.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that admittedly cheque was issued by the applicant, which was dishonored when opposite party no.2 presented the same in the Bank, therefore, offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is prima facie made out against the applicant and there is no illegality in the summoning order.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. It is not the case of applicant that he did not issue the cheque in question to opposite party no.2 and as per complaint cheque issued by the applicant was dishonored when opposite party no.2 presented the same in the Bank, therefore, it cannot be said that offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is not made out against the applicant, therefore, I find no illegality in the summoning order passed by the court below.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022/AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.18 10:36:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order in the complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act sustained being quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out against the applicant given the issuance and dishonour of the cheque.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tahir
State Of U.P
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
