Dismissed

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023A482/40114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court dismissed the application, holding that disputed questions of fact regarding cheque issuance and notice receipt cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 23.6.2017 and further proceedings in the complaint case were not quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40114 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.6.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2017 (New Complaint Case No. 337 of 2022), Smt. Anjali Gupta vs. Smt. Urmila Singh, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Hapur Kotwali, District- Hapur, pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicants had issued Cheque No. 945925 for an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- dated 16.9.2016 and Cheque No. 945927 for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- dated 19.9.2016 in favour of opposite party No. 2, however, on presentation of the said cheques, the same were dishonoured by the bank and returned back. After the dishonour of the cheques, a notice was sent to the applicants 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 notices were never received by the applicant and cheques were never issued by him, 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 factum of sending the notice and receipt of the same by the applicant has specifically been averred in the complaint, therefore, the proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against him. The

¶11

factum whether the cheques were issued by the applicant or not is disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that disputed question of fact whether the cheques were issued by the applicant or not and the factum 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 :- 19.1.2023 KU

¶15

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

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi 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

Zameel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhruv Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others