Mohd. Faisal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2024A482/10144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash a summoning order in a theft and assault complaint, alleged to be retaliation for an earlier Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour complaint by the applicant. Court issued notices, sought counter affidavit, listed the matter, and stayed effect of the summoning order meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order of 19.07.2024 and processes thereunder not to be given effect to qua the applicants; case listed week commencing 27.01.2025.

Mohd. Faisal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10144 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Faisal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Arti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 19.07.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) First/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.396 of 2024 (Mohd. Abbushad vs. Mohd. Faisal and others), under Sections 379 and 352 I.P.C.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that, in fact, the Criminal Case No.396 of 2024 is nothing but an attempt to coerce the present applicants so that they may not pursue the case bearing Complaint Case No.269 of 2014 under Section 138 N.I. Act filed earlier by applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2. Her next submission is that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that no dishonour of cheque is pending against the opposite party no.2. She, thus, submits that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that this is not a stage where such disputed facts may be adjudicated. However, he has been unable to dispute the aforesaid factual submissions including the fact that applicant no.1 had filed Complaint Case No.269 of 2014 under Section 138 N.I. Act against the opposite party no.2.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, the matter requires

¶10

consideration.

¶11

Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the office of learned A.G.A.

¶12

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶13

Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

Let counter affidavit(s) be filed within four weeks.

¶15

A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

Accordingly, list this case in the week commencing 27.01.2025.

¶17

Meanwhile, the impugned summoning order dated 19.07.2024 or any process issued pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the applicants .

¶18

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) Order Date :- 11.12.2024 A.Dewal

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Faisal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Faisal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahrooph Shah vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tirath Ram and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 13 Others

Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sectt. Lko

Kurkut Alias Jibreel Khan Alias Jibrail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Ravi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.