Disposed

Hamanshu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024/8070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged the summoning order in a cheque dishonour complaint, arguing he was a guarantor and notice was not served. The High Court held such objections must be raised before the trial court first and disposed of the application without interfering with the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of leaving objections to be raised before the trial court; impugned orders not interfered with.

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

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8070 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Hamanshu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 15.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Barabanki in Complaint No.528 of 2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition. Also under challenge is the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, EC Act, Barabanki, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the revision filed against the summoning order dated 15.07.2016 has been rejected.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the proceedings initiated by the private respondent under the provision of the Act, 1881, the learned court has issued the summoning order dated 15.07.2016. The argument is that the cheques that are alleged to have not been honoured were issued by the petitioner being a guarantor which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial court while issuing the summoning order. It is also contended that no notice was served on the petitioner prior to complaint being filed under the provisions of the Act, 1881.

¶8

The Court is of the view that keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Nimesh B. Thakore - AIR 2010 SC 1402, all the said objections should be raised before the learned trial court itself at the first instance.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid objections before the learned trial court. In case, such objections are raised then learned trial court shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously after hearing the parties concerned, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶10

It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the impugned orders.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 A. Katiyar

¶12

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hamanshu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamanshu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shravan Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Lallu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Mahtab Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another