Dismissed

Riyazuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023A482/20347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Allahabad High Court rejected the applicant's claim of false prosecution regarding dishonored security cheques, finding no ground to quash the summoning order under Section 138 N.I. Act.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash printing order and proceedings dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160732

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20347 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Riyazuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Tiwari,Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned summoning order dated 14.6.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.21921 of 2011 (Museer Ali alias Museer Miyan Vs. Riyazuddin), under Section 138 of Negotiable of Instrument Act(in brevity "N.I. Act."), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

¶8

Opposite party No.2 has moved a complaint dated 02.11.2021 under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that he has given Rs. 5,00,000/- and 2,00,000/- total 7,00,000/- to the accused (applicant) and in lieu thereof he has furnished two cheques i.e. bearing No.551540, amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 15.09.2021 and cheque No. 551541 dated 21.09.2021 amounting Rs. 2,00,000/-. However on the presentation of the aforesaid cheques to the bank same was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. After considering the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the contents of the complaint, learned trial court has found, prima facie, case under Section 138 N.I. Act, accordingly, issued the process against the present applicant, vide order dated 14.6.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the false and malicious prosecution has been made against the present applicant by portraying frivolous story of the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- by the complainant to the present applicant. It is further submitted that due to cordial relation, the present applicant has furnished two cheques for security in favour of the complainant, however, same has been misused by the complainant and presented before the bank which was dishonored for want of sufficient funds.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that, prima facie, from the face of record and the statement of the complainant, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the innocence of the present applicant can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the learned trial court after appreciating the evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is further submitted that, at this juncture, no legal ground is made out to warrant any indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, it reveals that two cheques bearing Nos.551540 and 551541 amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively have been dishonored by the bank for want of sufficient funds while same were presented by the complainant before the bank. There is no case of the present applicant that he has not furnished the aforesaid cheques. Prima facie, it is evident that the cheques were issued by the present applicant and the same was dishonored, therefore, having considered the fact of the case, learned Magistrate has rightly issued the process against the present applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶12

In this conspectus, as above, no justifiable ground is made out to interfere in the impugned summoning order dated 14.6.2022. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the orders impugned so as to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how present applicant is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶13

Resultantly, instant application, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Mini

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Riyazuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyazuddin 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

Natthulal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maksud Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mithilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subodh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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