The single judge rejected the quashing application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a summons in a cheque dishonour case, holding that a prima facie case was made out and the matter required adjudication by a trial court.
Application rejected; prayer to quash proceedings and summoning order refused.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128116
Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21555 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harindra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 55 of 2021 under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Face-3, District- Noida and the summoning order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Additional Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and due to malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as affidavit of complainant and documentary evidence, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicant. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity. As a matter of fact a missing report regarding the relevant cheque had already been furnished by the present applicant much prior to the alleged dishonour of cheque.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at the stage of summoning has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. The legal notice
given by opposite party no.2/ complainant to the present applicant reveals the fact that one undated cheque was given by the present applicant to the opposite party no.2/ complainant in lieu of some loan taken by the present applicant in the year 2020 and after covid-19 period when the same was presented before the bank, it was dishonoured. Further, to decide / adjudicate the plea raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
The application is accordingly, rejected .
Order Date :- 22.6.2023 Fhd
Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the proceedings and summoning order under Section 138 N.I. Act is maintainable.
Whether the impugned summoning order suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kumar
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
