Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a Section 138 NI Act complaint and summoning order; the applicant claimed the cheque was stolen by the complainant. The Court held the Section 139 presumption applied and was rebuttable at trial, and dismissed 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:153596
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*********
(Sl.No. 6)
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21645 of 2024
Applicant :- Hori Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
that apparently, the FIR has been lodged by the applicant after receipt of the legal notice, which shows that the FIR was lodged by the applicant to create a defence in the aforesaid case. Therefore, since the cheque in question was drawn from the account of the applicant, which was dishonored and after dishonor of the same, legal notice was issued which was received by the applicant and despite receipt of the legal notice, demand was not fulfilled by the applicant, therefore, prima facie case has been made out against the applicant in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Hence, no interference is called for in the instant application while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Kirti
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and the summoning order should be quashed on the applicant's claim that cheques were stolen by the complainant.
Whether an FIR lodged after receipt of the legal demand notice defeats a Section 138 NI Act complaint.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Hori Lal
State of U.P.
Pappu
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
