Dismissed

Aditya Bhushan Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023A482/37625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act. The court held that Section 138 applies even if a cheque was issued for a security amount, finding no illegality in the summons order.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; summons order and proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act upheld.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37625 of 2022 Applicant :- Aditya Bhushan Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 14.6.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2039 of 2021 (Smt. Sharika Tulsyan Vs. Aditya Bhushan Gupta), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Shahibabad, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad.

¶5

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued a Cheque No. 00010 for an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- dated 24.7.2021 in favour of Opposite Party No.2, however, on presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the bank. 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 filed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cheque in question was issued in lieu of a security amount and as such, the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn against him.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that even if the cheque has been issued for security amount, the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act would be attracted and the applicant has rightly been summoned to face trial u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶8

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and in view of the settled law that if a cheque is given for a security amount, the provision under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 5.1.2023

¶11

¶12

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aditya Bhushan Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Bhushan Gupta 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

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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramvir @ Ramvir Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S M.P. Printers (a Unit D.B. Corp. Ltd.) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bhavan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Vs State of U.P and Another