Remanded

Pradeep Tyagi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2022A482/9590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged a summoning order issued in a cheating case. The Single Judge held the order per incuriam for not considering due diligence under Section 405 IPC. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.10.2019 set aside; matter remanded for fresh order under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. within four weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9590 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Tyagi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State and perused the record,

¶6

The applicant before this Court is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 3, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 51969 of 2019 (6262/2018) (Satish Tyagi vs. Pradeep Tyagi) under Section 405 IPC, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut whereby he has been summoned under Section 406 IPC by an order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C on the basis of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation made against him was of civil nature and the allegation is that the cheque issued by him to retain the amount allegedly taken from the complainant towards agreement to sale of land. However, when the cheques were dishonored the complainant approached the court by way of filing complaint. He further submits that remedy available with the complainant was to file a complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act,

¶8

1881 and that the ingredients of Section 405 IPC are not prmia facie made out.

¶9

According to the ofÏce report, notice was served upon opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared.

¶10

Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA has assisted the Court on the legal issue about the requisite formation of opinion by the Magistrate that there are sufÏcient grounds to proceed against the applicant and also placed a judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383.

¶11

I have carefully perused the impugned order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The statements for the purpose of Sections 405 and 406 IPC are based on the averment that the payment paid towards the written agreement of land was not materialized though it was a written agreement. There is a further averment that the money was returned by way of cheque which was got dishonoured.

¶12

The learned trial court has narrated the facts in impugned order, however, in the operative portion, the Magistrate has stated only that in support of the complaint statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of two witnesses was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., however, there is not a single consideration about the ingredients of Section 405 IPC for the purpose of formation of

¶13

an opinion that there were sufÏcient grounds to summon the applicant under Section 204 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, an error has been committed as the impugned order is contrary to the proposition of law as mentioned in Lalankumar Singh (supra).

¶14

In these circumstances, the impugned summoning order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 3, Meerut is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration and to pass fresh order under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶15

Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Puspendra

¶17

Digitally signed by PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Date: 2022.11.24 17:30:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Tyagi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Tyagi and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. Chander Mohan Sethi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Shyam Babu Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Ajay @ Tunnu @ Dhunnu and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Annie @ Vishakha and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Anjali (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others