Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023A482/4688/2023

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 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the issue of non-enforceable debt is a triable fact and rejected the contention of the applicant regarding habitual offence without adopting the plea.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire proceedings was refused.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4688 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sati Shanker Tripathi,A.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Viveka Nand Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Sri Viveka Nand Rai, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 17.12.2020 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4422 of 2020, (Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Refinery, District Mathura.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no debt or other liabilities remains to be paid to the complainant. It is further submitted that the initial burden is upon the opposite party no. 2 to show that the cheque in question was issued for any legally enforceable liability or any debt.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned AGA has contended that from the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the private respondent further contended that applicant is a habitual offender and also produced an order passed in Criminal Misc Application U/s 482 No. 32167 of 2022 (Manoj Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of UP and another), wherein the applicant has also challenged the proceedings under Section 138 of N. I. Act. In this case, the applicant has also issued a cheque in the name of the complainant for an enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured and this court after considering the fact that

¶10

enforciability of the debt is a triable issue, dismissed the application vide order dated 3.12.2022.

¶11

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused. This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Kpy

¶13

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Chaudhary 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

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

Gaurav Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Kashyap and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harishchandra Varshney Vs State of U.P. and Another