Dismissed

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/14483/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a summoning order in a cheque dishonour case. It held that a prima facie case existed based on the complaint and statutory presumptions, concluding that disputes regarding the sale deed and payment amounts are factual matters for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the summoning order was dismissed.

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119224

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

(Sl No.8)

Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14483 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶9

1. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 02.12.2022 in Complaint Case No. 6124 of 2022 (Vishambhar Nath Shukla vs. Arvind Kumar) u/S 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ' the N.I. Act '), P.S.- Loni, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghaziabad.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 has entered into an agreement dated 03.02.2022 with regard to sale of house situated at Khasra No. 199 consisting of 4-5 rooms, admeasuring of about 180 sq. yards. However, finally the sale deed was executed only for an area of 150 sq. yards instead of 180 sq. yard, as agreed in the sale agreement. In the complaint it was stated that the said agreement to sell was for a total sum of Rs. 44,90,000/- and it is admitted in the complaint that Rs. 41,00,000/- was already paid to the opposite party no.2 and for the remaining amount of Rs. 3,90,000/-, a cheque was issued, which got dishonored.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the sale deed was executed only for the area of 150 sq. yard instead of 180 square yard as was agreed, therefore, the opposite party no.2 is not entitled for the aforesaid amount. It is further stated that in the sale deed, a total sale consideration is disclosed as

¶13

Rs.40,00,000/- and in view of the admission that Rs. 41,00,000/- was already received by the opposite party no.2, there was already an excess payment, therefore, the applicant has stopped the payment of the said cheque by instructing his Bank, thereupon, the instant complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits since there was no legally existing debt on the date of filing the complaint, therefore, complaint is not maintainable. Thus, he prays for quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant complaint case against the applicants. He has relied upon para '19' of the judgement of the Apex Court in Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat : AIR 2022 Supreme Court 147 .

¶15

6. Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State submits that once it is admitted by the applicant that cheque was issued by him in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, it shall be presumed that the said cheque was issued against legally enforceable debt, in view thereof the questions what were the exact sale consideration ? what payments were made ?, what was the liability remaining ? and what was the understanding between the parties with regard to agreement ? That is all subject matter of trial and will depend upon final outcome of the disputed questions of fact before the trial court. Therefore, at this preliminary stage the complaint be quashed on that ground.

¶16

7. In view thereof, having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the plain reading of the complaint and affidavit as well as the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the summoning order dated 02.12.2022, a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is made out and the arguments made by learned counsel for the applicant. So far as the other contentions raised by the applicant, disputing his liability on the basis of the sale deed executed and the agreement to sell between the parties, those are all contentions which can be raised by the applicant during the trial of the case, to record the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

¶17

8. Therefore, in view of the prima facie case on the basis of the complaint and the other relevant documents, which were placed on record before the trial court and his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., coupled with the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, prima facie case is made out against the applicant, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere the same and is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

9. It is open for the applicant to pursue all the remedies available before the trial court. Any observation made in the instant application is made only for the disposal of the instant application and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Shubham Arya

¶20

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkumar Gupta and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Indarpal vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Brit Life Science and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another