Dismissed

Gundepudi Venkata Ramana v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023A482/39498/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summons in a cheque bouncing case. The court held that service via registered post was established and notice receipt is an evidentiary issue for trial, not appropriate for quashing. The application was found devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39498 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gundepudi Venkata Ramana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 17.4.2019 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2399 of 2019 (Smt. Rubeena Parveen vs. Hindustan Pragati Pariwar Producer Company Ltd. through Director/Authorized Signatory G.V. Ramanna), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicants had issued Cheque No. 366782 for an amount of Rs. 7 lakh dated 15.11.2018 in favour of 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 filed.

¶8

On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the witnesses 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.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the notice was never received by the applicant, as such, proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn against the applicant.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the notice was sent on 23.2.2019 through registered post, which has been served upon the applicant, therefore, the proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against him.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel

¶12

for the parties and keeping in view the fact that notice was sent on 23.2.2019 through registered post, which has been served upon the applicant, therefore, the proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against him. The disputed question of service of notice, cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come. The impugned order is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference.

¶13

The present application u/s 482 being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 KU

¶15

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

Gundepudi Venkata Ramana v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundepudi Venkata Ramana 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

Shakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary (Home)

Waris Ali Vs State of U.P and Another