Dismissed

Arvind Ahuja v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023A482/40315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an S. 482 application seeking to quash the trial court's order rejecting a handwriting verification request in a bounced cheque case. The Court held the application was maliciousto delay the trial, noting the applicant's signature was admitted while the amount was filled by the opposite party. The trial court was directed to conclude the case within one month.

What did the court decide?

Application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed with costs; trial court directed to dispose of complaint within one month.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40315 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Ahuja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madan Mohan,Prem Sagar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash/ set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.193 of 2022 (Arvind Ahuja vs. State of U.P. & another) as well as to quash order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No.387 of 2011 (Naresh Kumar Oberai Vs. Arvind Ahuja), under Section 138 N.I. Act whereby the applicant's application for the prayer of verification of the handwriting on the cheques by the C.F.S.L., has been rejected.

¶7

After hearing the parties and going through the impugned order, it is found that on the impugned cheque the signatures of the applicant are not denied. Only this much is said that these cheques were given in security and the rest endorsement on the cheques (the amount and the name in whose favour the cheque is being given) are filled up by the opposite party no.2. The trial court has very well mentioned in the order that issuance of cheque is admitted. The signatures of the applicant on the cheque are also admitted. The applicant has not given his defence evidence. Both the parties have filed their written arguments, just to avoid the judgment of the case the present application has been moved by the applicant.

¶8

After going through the facts, no infirmity is found in the impugned order as when the signatures of the applicant on the cheque are admitted than there is no occasion of sending the cheque for the verification of the writing of a person, who has filled the amount or who has written the name on the cheque in whose favour cheque has been issued. Admittedly the handwriting on the cheques apart from signatures is of opposite party no.2. Regarding admitted facts no expert report is needed. The case under Section 138 N.I. Act is of the year 2011. Since about last one year it appears to be fixed for the final arguments and the case is not being argued by the counsel for the applicant.

¶9

In my opinion, the present application is a malicious prosecution filed with the intention of avoiding final disposal of complaint case of the opposite party no.2.

¶10

The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to opposite party no.2 within 15 days from today.

¶11

The trial court is directed to dispose of the Complaint Case No.387/20211 (Naresh Kumar Oberai vs. Arvind Ahuja), under Section 138 N.I. Act within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the court concerned.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 Radhika

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Ahuja v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Ahuja 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

Santosh Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nityanand Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Awadha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Another

Riyaz Ahamad Vs State of U.P and Another

Satish Singh @ Gogi and Others Vs State of U.P and Another