Deepak Chandak v. State of Up and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The court rejected an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. It held that the complaint filed on 19.08.2020 was within the limitation period, rejecting the argument based on the notice date lacking proof of service. The court also ruled that an incorrect section mentioned for double recovery did not vitiate the complaint.
What did the court decide?
The application to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3486 of 2020 was rejected.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164133
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16076 of 2024
Applicant :- Deepak Chandak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
- Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Ali Bin Saif, on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.
- Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra along with Sri Ali Bin Saif, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uday Bhan, learned AGA for the State.
- The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3486 of 2020 (M/s Ashanchal MetalsPartners Anupam Varshney & Anugrah Varshney Vs. M/s Chandak brothers-Ashok Kumar Maheshwari & others), under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Delhigate, District-Aligarh, pending in the court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh as well as summoning order dated 01.12.2023.
- First contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the demand notice was sent by the complainant on 02.07.2019 and thereafter, the complaint was filed on 19.08.2020, which is prior to 15 days from the date of service of the notice. Second contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the complaint, apart from seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, there is prayer for direction to pay double of the cheque amount under section 354 Cr.P.C., though, there is no provision u/s 354 Cr.P.C. for payment of double amount of the cheque in question.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay between sending the demand notice on 02.07.2019 and filing the complaint on 19.08.2020 renders the complaint time-barred under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Whether the inclusion of an incorrect prayer for double cheque recovery under Section 354 Cr.P.C. in the complaint provides sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.
Whether there are any sufficient grounds to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3486 of 2020.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Deepak Chandak
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/16076/2024
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Order 2 · Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court