Dismissed

Amit Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023A482/34039/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application to quash summons proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The single judge held that return of a partial cheque amount is a disputed factual issue not relevant at the quashing stage and refused to compel the respondent to opt for mediation. The impugned order was found legal and non-me.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the summons order dated 12.05.2023 remains valid and unquashed; the applicant was directed to approach the opposite party to settle the dispute amicably.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183212

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34039 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 12.05.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12827 of 2023 (Akhlesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Amit Srivastava), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Navabad, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Jhansi.

¶6

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued a Cheque No. 000018 dated 01.02.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to Opposite Party No.2, however, on presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the bank and returned back. After the dishonour of the cheque, a notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment however, despite being noticed the due amount was not paid as such, the present complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act has been instituted against the applicant.

¶7

Learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 12.05.2023.

¶8

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 12.05.2023, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that part of the cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been returned to opposite party no.2 and he is ready to return the

¶10

balance amount of cheque to opposite party no.2 and has repeatedly been approaching him for the same but the same has not been accepted by opposite party no.2 and as such, the matter be referred to Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicably settling the dispute on the basis of which entire proceedings be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 12.05.2023, which is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference.

¶12

Learned AGA has further submitted that disputed question of return of part amount of cheque cannot be decided at this stage and opposite party no.2 cannot be compelled to enter into a compromise through mediation, as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage particularly, when there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, has summoned the applicant to face trial, there cannot be said to be any illegality or error of law in summoning the applicant to face trial u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Moreover, the factum of return of Rs.50,000/- out of the cheque amount is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. The applicant, if so advised, may approach opposite party no.2 and offer him the due amount, as agreed upon and may enter into compromise, however, this Court cannot compel opposite party no.2 to explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably through mediation.

¶14

In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the court below is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference at this stage.

¶15

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.9.2023/Subham

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Srivastava 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

Harendra Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Chaturvedi and 2 Othesr Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others