Disposed

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024A482/1182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court judge stayed proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act in a quashing application alleging false complaints. Notices were issued, and counter-affidavits were directed to be filed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and Complaint Case No.5479 of 2022 pending in the lower court were stayed until the date of next hearing.

Anil Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1182 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra,Jaylaxmi Upadhyay,Rituraj Mishra,Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri A.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.

¶6

2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date, for which, necessary steps be taken within a week.

¶7

3. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶9

5. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing/ setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate-II, Hardoi in Complaint Case No.5479 of 2022 (Farjand Ali Vs. Anil Kumar Tiwari), under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after referred to as the "N.I. Act"), Police Station-Sandila, District-Hardoi (Annexure No.1) as well as the entire proceedings including the Complaint Case No.5479 of 2022 filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 16.03.2022 in the case of Farjand Ali Vs. Anil Kumar Tiwari relating to Police Station-Sandila, DistrictHardoi by the opposite party No.2 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Hardoi, District-Hardoi.

¶10

6. Sri A.P. Mishra has stated that in the present case the petitioner is a victim and the opposite party No.2 has filed not only a false and misconceived complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act but such case has been filed having ulterior motives and extraneous design in his mind. Annexure No.2 of the petition is a complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 16.03.2022 wherein one fact has been categorically indicated in para-1 that the petitioner has sold out one piece of land in favour of the complainant to the

¶11

tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.11.2014. As per para-2 of such complaint, in one hand the complainant is saying that the physical possession of the land in question was not given but when the complainant tried to start construction over the plot in question, he allegedly came to know through reliable sources that the plot in question has been soled out to someone else.

¶12

7. Sri A.P. Mishra has stated that if the physical possession was not handed over to the complainant then as to how under which capacity he started making construction over such plot. As per the complaint of the complainant, the petitioner returned the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the interest of Rs.13,00,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.18,00,000/- by means of cheque dated 05.01.2022.

¶13

8. Sri A.P. Mishra, has stated the entire story of the complaint is false and concocted inasmuch as even if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/was to be returned to the complainant, it may not enhance upto Rs.18,00,000/-.

¶14

9. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.4 of the petition, which is an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0083 of 2022, under Sections 384, 447, 504, 506 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow South (Commissionerate, Lucknow) lodged by the petitioner against seven named persons and against some unnamed persons including Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui, who is son of the opposite party No.2. In the aforesaid F.I.R., besides so many allegations, one allegation has also been levelled that the opposite party No.2 has forcefully and under coercion obtained a cheque of Rs.18,00,000/- from the petitioner. In the entire F.I.R., the petitioner has narrated each fact and circumstances in detail and has stated that the opposite party No.2 and others are having ulterior motives and extraneous design in their mind to cheat the petitioner.

¶15

10. Sri A.P. Mishra has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed today, which is an F.I.R. dated 11.08.2018 bearing Case Crime No.0388 of 2018, under Sections 447, 379, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow lodged by the son of the opposite party No.2 against five named persons and 3040 unnamed persons. Some of the accused in this F.I.R. as well as the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner are the same.

¶16

11. In the aforesaid F.I.R., the son of the complainant has categorically averred that one piece of land has been sold out by the petitioner in favour of father of the complainant and after purchasing that land the land had been mutated in the name of father of opposite party No.2. The aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged

¶17

on 11.08.2018 but no complaint of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present petitioner, whereas in the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act wherein the story started from 12.11.2014 when the land in question was purchased by the opposite party No.2 but he has not given any reference of earlier F.I.R. which was registered in the year 2018. Not only the above, having ulterior motives and extraneous design such complaint has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, not at Lucknow, so that the petitioner could not know about such complaint and in the aforesaid complaint the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint after recording the statement of Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and issued impugned notice dated 16.03.2022 to the petitioner to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre at Hardoi.

¶18

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that these all are malafide tactics of opposite party No.2 so as to pressurize the petitioner to make payment of Rs.18,00,000/- for no transaction to that effect. He has further submitted that if the aforesaid two F.I.Rs. as well as the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act are perused carefully, the relevant fact would be emerged that there is no debt or other liability which is treated as enforceable debt or liability and if there is no debt or other liability or any legally enforceable debt upon the petitioner, the same may not be executed by filing application under Section 138 N.I. Act in view of the explanation of Section 138 N.I. Act.

¶19

13. The matter requires consideration.

¶20

14. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶21

15. List this case in the week commencing 01.04.2024.

¶22

16. Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings of the Complaint Case No.5479 of 2022 (Farjand Ali vs. Anil Kumar Tiwari) filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 16.03.2022, Police Station-Sandila, District-Hardoi pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Hardoi, shall remain stayed.

¶23

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Suresh/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Kalpana Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kaleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Amit @ Amit Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Shanti and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another