Dismissed

Amaanurahmaan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023A482/34488/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act arising from a cheque issued as security in a civil property dispute, the court held that fact disputes requiring evidence prevented premature quashing. The application was rejected, and the applicant was enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings rejected; applicant enlarged on bail; proceedings expected to conclude expeditiously.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34488 of 2015 Applicant :- Amaanurahmaan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adil Jamal

¶3

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Adil Jamal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

Present application has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in complaint Case No. 969 of 2014, Mohd. Irfan Khan vs. Amaanurahmaan, instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶6

The only submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is, no cheque had been issued for any money due to the opposite party. In fact, there exists a civil dispute between them with respect to an immovable property being House No. 130/172A, Bagahi, Kanpur Nagar. Under the written agreement dated 16.07.2012 executed between the parties, the applicant had issued a cheque for security offered Rs. 12,00,000/-.

¶7

Opposite party no. 2 developed ill will and wrongly presented the cheque furnished to offer security. That money had not become due under the written agreement between the parties.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted, the plea being set up in these proceedings, is a plea of defence which would require necessary evidence to be first led before the fact assertion being made may be accepted by the Court. That exercise may not be entertained in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. As to the plea set up in the present proceedings, the same brings out fact dispute. The plea may never become open to examination unless necessary evidence to prove the fact basis of such plea is first led before the Court. That stage is pending in

¶10

proceedings before the learned Court below.

¶11

In view of the above, no good ground exists to prematurely quash the criminal prosecution.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application is rejected leaving it open to the applicant to pursue all other remedies as are available under the Statutes.

¶13

Since trial has remained pending for very long, it is expected subject to the applicant co-operating with the same, proceedings may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the time-line provided under the Act.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 Rishabh/Aditya Tripathi

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amaanurahmaan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaanurahmaan 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

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hitesh Chawla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dipak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Musharraf and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendranath Mishra @ Jitendra Mishra Vs State of U.P.