Dismissed¶13

Bal Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024/7362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC); cheque dishonour complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881; summoning order dated 10.05.2023; criminal revision rejected on technicality by order dated 29.07.2024 of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow; no mini trial under Section 482 jurisdiction; Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr relied on; cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-; Bal Krishna Vs. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; application rejected on 21.8.2024.

What did the court decide?

The grounds taken by the applicant, though attractive on the face of the record, merit outright rejection. ¶12

Bal Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 288 of 2023 (challenging the summoning order dated 10.05.2023 in the cheque-dishonour complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881) should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.). +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

No case for interference is made out; the application is rejected.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The grounds taken by the applicant, though attractive on the face of the record, merit outright rejection.

¶12

Key takeaways

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan (relied upon), this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to hold a mini trial.ratio¶12
The cheque issued by the applicant has not been honoured; consequently, the offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has arisen and a complaint has been filed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Abdul Moin, J. - Two applications under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (previously Section 482 Cr.P.C.), Nos. 7362 and 7382 of 2024, heard together (facts taken from No. 7362 of 2024), seeking quashing of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 288 of 2023 (referred to in the body as Criminal Revision No. 287 of 2023), whereby the revision against the Trial Court's summoning order dated 10.05.2023 in a complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, arising from dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- issued by the applicant, was rejected on a technicality. Grounds urged: the cheque was issued on the respondent no. 2's representation that the original cheque had been misplaced, and there was no liability to pay. Held: (i) in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not required to hold a mini trial, as held by the Apex Court in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr, Criminal Appeal Nos. 694-695 of 2022 (decided 26.04.2022), relied upon; (ii) the cheque issued by the applicant having not been honoured, the offence under the Act, 1881 had arisen and a complaint was filed; (iii) the grounds, though attractive on the face of the record, merited outright rejection and no case for interference was made out. Applications rejected (order dated 21.8.2024).

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7362 of 2024 Applicant :- Bal Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Verma,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

And

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7382 of 2024 Applicant :- Bal Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Verma,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Komal Prasad, Advocate who files his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the respondent no. 2 which is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the issue involved in an Application U/S 482 No. 7382 of 2024 is the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear both the petitions together. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Application U/S 482 No. 7362 of 2024 are being taken.

¶8

Instant application under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (Previously Section 482 Cr.P.C) has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 288 of 2023 Inre; Bal Krishna Vs. State of U.P and Ors.

¶9

From a perusal of records it emerges that a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been issued by the applicant which was not honoured which has resulted in the respondent no. 2 filing an application under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1881"). The learned Court has issued a summoning order dated 10.05.2023 which has been challenged. The Court had summoned the applicant herein. During pendency of the case, an order dated 10.05.2023 was passed by the learned Trial Court (page 69) which has been challenged by filing Criminal Revision No. 287 of 2023 which,

¶10

on a technicality has been rejected vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the application. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the instant application has been filed.

¶11

Various grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in order to challenge both the orders namely (a) that the cheque had been given by the applicant believing the respondent no. 2 that the original cheque that had been given by him, has been misplaced and (b) there is no liability for payment of the aforesaid amount.

¶12

The aforesaid grounds though attractive on the face of record merit outright rejection inasmuch as the the Apex Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 694-695 of 2022 decided on 26.04.2022 has held that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not required to hold a mini trial. Apart from that, the fact of the matter remains that the cheque that has been issued by the applicant has not been honoured and consequently, the offence under the provisions of the Act, 1881 has arisen for which a complaint has been filed.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Pachhere/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bal Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenie X Thru. His Natural Guardian Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shaiq Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satyam Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Bhaskar Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Bhusaili vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Bal Krishna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another