Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order in a cheque-dishonour complaint under Section 138 NI Act, admitting issuance of the cheque but alleging misuse. The court found the presumption under Section 139 applied and no illegality in summoning, dismissing the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118882
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl No.11)
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15122 of 2024
Applicant :- Indarpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 11.07.2022 in Complaint Case No. 35 of 2022 (Manmohan vs. Indarpal) u/S 138 N.I. Act, I.P.C., P.S.- Mawana, DistrictMeerut, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, District- Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant disputes the averments made in the complaint, however, admits that the impugned cheque was issued by the applicant herein, though submits that the aforesaid cheque has been mis-utilized by the opposite party no.2 and thereupon the instant complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant complaint case.
4. Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State submits that once it has been admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the cheque was issued by the applicant, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, comes into play and in view of the aforesaid presumption, it shall be presumed that the said cheque was issued by the applicant against the legally enforceable debt or liability and since the cheque was dishonoured and even after demand notice he has failed to comply with the demand notice the complaint has been validly filed by the opposite party no.2 and the trial court having satisfied, there being a prima facie against the applicant, has summoned the applicant herein vide
order dated 11.07.2022, which do not warrant any interference.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the impugned cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no.2, which got dishonoured for the reasons "insufficient fund" , the demand notice dated 10.03.2022 was issued, which was not complied, thereupon the instant complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 08.04.2022. Therefore, in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant herein, therefore, the learned trial court has taken cognizance vide order dated 11.07.2022 and summoned the applicants herein, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the summoning order dated 11.07.2022. The other submission with regard to the dispute of existence of liability or wrong avernments made in the complaint can be contested by the applicant during the trial of the case to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
6. In view thereof, the instant case is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order dated 11.07.2022 in the Section 138 NI Act complaint could be quashed given the applicant's admission that he issued the cheque.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Indarpal
State of U.P.
Manmohan
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
