Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Asthana v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2023A482/14155/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the summons and proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant. The Court held that the ₹2 lakh cheque was presented after its validity period and the ₹3 lakh cheque suffered from defective averments regarding the demand notice in the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 25.09.2013 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 under Section 138 N.I. Act are quashed.

Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:211879

¶2

Court No. - 92

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14155 of 2017

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Asthana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiva Kant Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Prashant Saxena, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been files seeking quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 25.09.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. Pradeep Kumar Asthana), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the plain reading of the complaint filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act') by the opposite party no.2, it is apparent that the cheque for Rs. 2 lacs was issued on 20.01.2012 and the said cheque was presented on 19.11.2012 after the expiry of its validity period. Therefore, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act can be attracted towards the cheque of Rs. 2 lacs dated 20.01.2012. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that so far as the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs is concerned though, the same was presented within the validity period and was dishonoured. However, from the reading of the entire complaint, it is apparent that there is no averments with regard to issuance of any demand notice by the opposite party no.2 demanding the cheque amount from the applicant herein. Therefore, for want of such notice and expiry of the notice period, the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act will not be constituted in terms of Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶9

From the plain reading of the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act as filed by the opposite party no.2, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out against the applicant herein as the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act itself has not been constituted. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has

¶10

prayed for quashing of summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the said complaint case against the applicant herein.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that though there is no mention of issuance of any legal notice however, in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no. 2 has stated with regard to issuance of notice and when no reply was received, the instant complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 138 N.I.Act is not made out. Learned counsel for the State also submits that from the plain reading of the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act as filed by the opposite party no.2, the ingredients of Section 138 N.I.Act are not fulfilled, therefore, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is constituted as neither there is any reference to any demand notice or failure of the applicant to comply with the demand notice is made in the instant complaint case. Therefore, learned counsel for the State also submits that the instant application deserves to be allowed as no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is constituted.

¶12

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act as filed by the opposite party no.2 is reproduced as under:

¶13

" ववदपतअनतररतधवरव 138 ननरग०नशएबबलइनसटटममणटऐकटनमनजवननब पररववददननमनलललखतहह-

¶14

यहनकपररववददननववसदमबहलव-शवहमबहममदपबर, थवनव-म ब वरकपबरलजलवआजमरढ।पमशववयवसवयहह।

¶15

यहनकपररववददवअनभयबककमबदचबहहतघननषससबसधदगसतवनवलरवव थव।

¶16

यहनकअनभयबकनमअपनमआवशयकजररदयवतककपटनतरकमललएहम पररववददसममबव० 500000/- पवपचलवखरपयवउधवरमवसरवऔरअनभयगरदनम अनभयबकपरनवशववसकरकमएकसवलकमअनदरवनकशततयथवनदनवसक 15.4.09 कगमबव० 70,000/- र०, नदनवसक 13.6.09 कगमबव० 50,000/र०- नदनवसक 30.7.09 वनदनवसक 20.09.09 कग मबव० 40,000/- र०, 60,000/- र०, नदनवसक 28.10.09 कगमबव० 80,000/- र०, नदनवसक 27.11.09 कग 1,00,000/- र०-, नदनवसक 29.12.09 कगमबव० 40,000/र०, नदनवसक 27.1.10 कगमबव० 30,000/-र०, वनदनवसक 20.2.10 कग 30,000/- मबव० 5,00,000/- रपयवअनभयबककगउधवरनदयव।

¶17

यहनकअनभयबकनमउककबलधनरवनशमबव० 5,00,000/- र०सनन 2010 कमअनततकववपसकरनमकवववदवभदनकयव।

¶18

यहनकहमपररववददनमजबअपनमदवरवअनभयबककगनदयमरयमउधवररपयम

¶19

ककमवसरनकयवतगअनभयबकहदलवहववलदकरनमलरवऔरअनतततउसनम उधवरममलदरयदसमपटरररकमककववपसदजररयवचमकदगबवरममभबरतवन करनमककबवतनकयवऔरआशववसननदयवऔरअपनमआशववसनकममबतवनबक अनभयबककममबव० 2,00,000/- र०कवएकवउनटपमईचमकसस० 083003 नदनवसक 20.1.2012 भवरतदयसटमटबहकआजमरढकगनदयवऔरकहवनक पररववददअभदकबछसमयबवदजबममबतवऊसरवतबचमकअपनमखवतमममजमव करमरव।

¶20

यहनकपररववददअनभयबककमनबशववसवबतवनमकमअनबसवरउकचमककग नदनवसक 19.11.2012 ओररएनटलबमकआफकवमसरशवखवम ब वरकरपबरमम अपनमखवतमममजमवनकयवजगअपयवरपफणडकमआधवरपरनहसआनरहग रयव।

¶21

यहनकपररववददनमचमक नहतआनरहगनमककबवतअनभयबककगउससम नमलकरवयनकरतततरपरबतवयव। 8. यहनकअनभयबकनमअपनमदवरवनदयमरयमकजरककभरपवईकमललयमहम पररववददकगपबनतबहकआफमहवरवषनषलसधवरदआजमरढदवरवजवरदचमकसस० 957550 तदनलवखरपयवनदनवसक 12.09.2012 बववतमब० 300000/जवरदनकयव। 9. यहनकहमअनभयगरदकगअनभयबककमकथनवनबसवरनवशववसकरकमचमक सस० 957550 कगओररएणटलबहकआफकवमसरशवखवम ब वरकपबरममअपनम खवतमममजमवनकयवजगभदपयवरपननलधकमअभववममववपसहगरयव।

¶22

यहनकहमअनभयगरदअनभयबककमउकककतयसमदबखदएवसक ब धहगकर अनभयबकसमपबनतसमपकरनकयव।औरबतवयवतगउसनमकहवनकपररववददचमक सस० 957550 कगपबनतबहकममजमवकरदम।उसकमखवतममम 3,500,00/- र० (तदनलवखपचवसहजवररपयम) हह, भबरतवनहगजवयमरवऔरहमअनभयगरदनम अनभयबकपरनवशववसकरकम चमकसस० 957550 कगपबनतनदनवसक 29.11.2012 कगअपनमखवतमममओररएणटलबहकआफकवमसरशवखव म ब वरकपबरममजमवनकयवऔरउकचमकदगबवरवभदपयवरपननलधकमअभववमम नहतआनरहगरयव।

¶23

यहनकअनभयबकनमबववजटदतलबकरवयवअनभयगरदकमरपयतकगववपस नहहनकयवऔरउसकमदवरवजवरदनकयमरयमचमकबववत 2,00,000/- र०व मब० 3,00,000/-र०यवनदमब० 5,00,000 र०कवदगरबनवमबव० 10,00,000 र०वसटलनकयवजवनवआवशयकहह।अततशदमवनसमपवथरनवहह नकअनभयबककगतलबकरउसमदणणडतनकयवजवयतथवउसकमदवरवकजरकक अदवयरदकमललयमजवरदनकयमरयमचमकसस० 83003 नदनवसक 20.1.2012 बववत र०वचमकसस० मब० 2,00,000/-र०कवदगरबनवमबव० 4,00,000/957550 नदनवसक 12.9.2012 बववतमब० 3,00,000/- र०कवदगरबनवमबव० 6,00,000/- र०वसटलकरपररववददकगनदयमजवनमकवहहकबमसवनदर फरमवयवजववम।"

¶24

From the perusal of said complaint itself, it is admitted by the opposite party no.2 that the cheque of Rs. 02 lacs was issued by the applicant on 20.01.2012 and the said cheque was presented on 19.11.2012, therefore, the said cheque was presented after its

¶25

validity period beyond six month. On 19.11.2012, when the said cheque was dishonoured, the said instrument was not a valid instrument for which an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act can be attracted. So far as the cheque of Rs. 03 lacs issued on 12.09.2012 is concerned that was presented within the validity period on 29.11.2012, however, the said cheque was also dishonoured. Therefore, the instant complaint has been filed without making any averment that any demand notice was issued in terms of Section 138 N.I. Act by the opposite party no.2 from the applicant and the applicant has failed to comply with such demand notice. However, along with the complaint, the photocopy of the notice dated 13.12.2012 and the registry receipt dated 13.12.2012 has been annexed. Vide impugned summoning order dated 25.09.2013, the learned Magistrate taking note of the said legal notice and the registry receipt, has issued the summons against the applicant. However, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for both the cheque amounts.

¶26

In the considered opinion of this Court so far as the cheque of Rs. 02 lacs is concerned, the same was presented after its validity period, therefore, that will not attract any offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and so far as the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs is concerned for want of any averments in the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act regarding demand notice issued by the opposite party no. 2 from the applicant and failure of compliance on behalf of the applicant to the said demand notice, the complaint is improperly filed and from the plain reading of the said complaint as aforequoted, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is constituted, therefore, the instant application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.

¶27

The summoning order dated 25.09.2013 and the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. Pradeep Kumar Asthana), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, are hereby quashed.

¶28

Order Date :- 3.11.2023 Ashish Pd.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar Asthana v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Asthana 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

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar @ Bittoo and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhi Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anam Sufiya and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Kant Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another