Disposed

Poonam Dhruv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024A482/19695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a Section 138 NI Act complaint and summoning order. The court held that since cheque issuance was admitted, presumption of liability under Section 139 NI Act applies and is rebuttable at trial. Application disposed of; applicant permitted to seek appearance through counsel under Section 205 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed/allowed to move an application under Section 205 CrPC for appearance through counsel, to be decided by trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132687

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl.No.12)

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19695 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Poonam Dhruv Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Faheem Ahmad,G.A.,Shibli Naseem

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shibli Naseem, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 05.07.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 72 of 2023 (Priti Gupta vs. Poonam Dhruv Kumar) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I. Act'), P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, pending before the court of Additional Court N.I.Act, Agra.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned cheque in question was handed over to the opposite party no.2 by the applicant in connection with a business relationship between them as a security for any default in payment on the part of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire amount due to the opposite party no.2 has already been paid by the applicant herein. However, the said cheque has been misused by the opposite party no.2 and the instant complaint case has been filed. Therefore, since there is no liability, the instant case is nothing but a malicious prosecution on the part of the opposite party no.2 against the applicant. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to quash the entire proceeding against the applicant.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that once it is admitted by the applicant that the cheque was issued from his account during the business transaction by the applicant. Therefore, in view of Section 139 of the N.I.Act it shall be presumed that the said cheque was issued by the applicant in discharge of his legal liability towards the opposite party no.2. Whether there was no liability, is a question of fact,

¶12

which has to be proved by the applicant during the trial of the case. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶13

The aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 are also adopted by the learned AGA for the State.

¶14

Having heard the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is alleged in the complaint that there was some business arrangement between the parties and in view thereof, the opposite party no.2 has invested Rs. 50 lacs for production of a DD Kisan serial namely 'Kiske Roke Ruka Hai Sabera'. For repayment thereof, a cheque of Rs. 30 lacs was given to the opposite party no.2 by the applicant on 27.02.2023, which was dishonoured for the reasons 'account closed'. Thereafter the demand notice was sent in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act. When the said demand notice was not complied with, therefore, the instant complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 17.04.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has not denied the issuance of cheque. However, he disputes the liability. Once it is admitted that the cheque was issued by the applicant, it shall be presumed under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that such cheque was issued by the applicant in discharge of his legal liablity. However, such presumption is a rebuttable presumption, which the applicant can very well rebut during the trial of the case by leading the cogent evidence to establish before the trial court that there was no liability on the part of the applicant.

¶15

In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant application. However, it is open to the applicant to raise all his contentions with regard to liability before the trial court concerned.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has further prayed that since the applicant is the resident of Mumbai and the complaint case has been filed at Jaunpur, therefore, it may be permitted to appear through his counsel as he has already obtained bail in the instant case.

¶17

It is open for the applicant to move an appropriate applicant under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which shall be decided by the concerned court in accordance with law.

¶18

Therefore, the instant application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to move an appropriate application

¶19

under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Ashish Pd.

¶21

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Poonam Dhruv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Dhruv Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujjawal Dhavan vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandna Yadav vs State of Upand 3 Others

Cosmopolitan Public Senior Secondary School and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali vs State of Up and 2 Others

Pawan and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rishabh Khandelwal and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another