Dismissed

Jokham Vishwakarma v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024A482/19386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash orders under Section 143-A N.I. Act, the High Court held that the plea regarding the nature of the cheque issue is a disputed question of fact available for trial. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the lower court's order and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the impugned order and proceedings under Section 143-A N.I. Act is dismissed.

Jokham Vishwakarma vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:186073

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19386 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jokham Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today, which it is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ravendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A for State and perused the record.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) (Offence against woman)/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 903/2020 (Manoj Singh Vs. Jokhan Vishwakarma), u/s 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur.

¶9

Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that while passing the impugned order under Section 143-A of N.I. Act, the court below has not considered the direction of Apex Court given in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs State of Jharkhand and others passed in Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2024 , in which specific direction has been issued while passing order under Section 143-A N.I. It is further submitted that impugned proceeding is absolutely illegal and malicious, as the cheque in question was not given by the applicant in discharge of liability, but it was given because of friendly relationship between the applicant and complainant. It is further submitted that though the applicant has raised these issues while filing objection to the application filed by complainant under Section 143-A of N.I. Act, but the court below has not considered the same and granted interim compensation at the rate of 5% of cheque amount on the complainant.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A has submitted that there is no

¶11

illegality in the impugned proceedings and the plea raised by applicant in his defence cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that admittedly cheque in question was given by applicant to opposite party no. 2, therefore, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would be prima facie attracted. However, contention of counsel for applicant that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of liability but it was given in friendly relationship, was not considered by the court below, is his defence being disputed question of fact, that cannot be looked into at this stage, that grounds is available to the applicant during trial.

¶13

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality neither the impugned proceedings nor in the impugned order passed under Section 143-A N.I. Act.

¶14

Accordingly, present application is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Saurabh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jokham Vishwakarma v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jokham Vishwakarma v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhinay Verama vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Joshi and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohan Lal vs State of Up and Another

Ram Karan vs State of U.P. and Another

Mes Enterprises vs State of Up and Another

Ktr Paneer Proprietor through Tahir vs State of U.P. and Another