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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 24.08.2022 passed in Case No.54996 of 2022 (In re Dashrat Mahto vs Dinesh Kumar) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the proceedings of that case, should be quashed. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

There is no bar under the provisions of the Act, 1881 to filing a complaint merely because an FIR has been lodged for any offence whatsoever.

Key takeaways

Where a cheque issued by a person is bounced, a prima facie offence under the Act, 1881 can be said to have been committed, for which the learned court proceeded to issue the summoning order.ratio¶¶11
Merely because the fact of lodging of an FIR has not been disclosed in the complaint would not vitiate the complaint filed under the provisions of the Act, 1881.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Dinesh Kumar challenging the summoning order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Additional Court, Lucknow in Case No.54996 of 2022, In re Dashrat Mahto vs Dinesh Kumar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and seeking quashing of the proceedings therein. Grounds urged: (i) the cheque was issued only for repayment of a loan taken from respondent No. 2 for treatment of the petitioner's mother, not in any business transaction, hence no offence under the Act, 1881; (ii) respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR, not disclosed in the complaint or in the complainant's statement recorded under the Act, 1881. Court held: there is no bar under the Act, 1881 to filing a complaint because an FIR has been lodged; issuance and bouncing of a cheque prima facie constitutes an offence under the Act for which the summoning order was issued; and non-disclosure of the FIR does not vitiate the complaint. All grounds found patently fallacious; petition dismissed. (Abdul Moin, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Order Date 23.8.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:57522.)

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57522

Court No. - 11

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7412 of 2024

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Rastogi holding brief of Shri Rakesh Chandra Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed raising a challenge to the summoning order dated 24.08.2022, a copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition, in Case No.54996 of 2022 In re Dashrat Mahto vs Dinesh Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1881') passed by the learned Additional Court, Lucknow.

Further prayer is to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. The ground as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque for which the aforesaid complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 was not issued in any business transaction or otherwise rather had only been issued for repayment when the petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent No.2 for the purpose of treatment of his mother and as such for the alleged bouncing of the cheque, offence as per the provisions of the Act, 1881 is not attracted. The other ground is that the respondent No.2 has already lodged an FIR just to harass the petitioner and there is no disclosure made in the complaint, which had been filed under the provisions of the Act, 1881 pertaining to lodging of the FIR. Further in the statement which has been recorded under the provisions of Act, 1881 the complainant has not disclosed about lodging of the FIR.

4. All the aforesaid grounds are found to be patently fallacious

inasmuch as there is no bar under the provisions of Act, 1881 that in case an FIR has been lodged for any offence whatsoever, a complaint under the provisions of Act, 1881 cannot be filed. The fact of the matter is that in case the cheque had been issued by a person and the same is bounced prima facie offence under the provisions of the Act, 1881 can be said to have been committed for which the learned court has proceeded to issue the summoning order. Merely because the fact of lodging of an FIR for any offence has not been disclosed in the said complaint would not vitiate the complaint which has been filed under the provisions of the Act, 1881.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed .

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 prateek

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench