Dismissed

Ram Avtar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024A482/21950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act case. Relying on precedent, the Court held that summoning the signatory Directors deems the company summoned. Defences regarding payment and lost cheques are for trial, not quashing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Avtar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156432

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl.No.15) Court No. - 79

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21950 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Ram Avtar Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 11.9.2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.3, Agra as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.875/2018 (Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. Ram Avtar Agarwal and another) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, Police Station-Chhata, District-Agra.

¶9

The brief facts of the instant case are that the applicant herein is the Director of the Company i.e., M/s Anupam Omarion Infrastructure (1) Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid company was involved in construction of the buildings and sale thereof. In connection and on assurance of the applicant the opposite party no.2 booked the flats for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- in the project constituted by the company. However, the applicant and the company failed to perform their part of the promise in terms of the investment made by the opposite party no.2 and did not construct the flats as promised, thereupon, the opposite party no.2 repeatedly asked his money back from the company from the applicant herein and towards the discharge of his liability the applicant herein issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 06.04.2018 from the account of the company, which was signed by the applicant herein. The said cheque was presented for encashment by the opposite party no.2 on 10.04.2018 and the same was dishonored for the reason "Account Closed" on 11.04.2018. Immediately thereupon, the opposite party no.2 informed the applicant herein with regard to the dishonor of cheque through his phone. When no specific reply was given by the applicant, the opposite party no.2 issued a legal demand notice dated 09.05.2018, which was served on the applicant herein on 11.05.2018. When the applicant and the company failed to comply with the aforesaid demand notice, then, within the statutory period of 15 days, the instant complaint was filed on 14.06.2018 arraying the company as well as the applicant

¶10

herein as an accused in the instant case. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 11.09.2018, having found a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has summoned the applicant herein being the Signatory Director of the company for trial. Subsequent thereto, the complainant has died during the pendency of the instant complaint case. Thereupon, vide order 08.11.2023, the son of the complainant was substituted as the complainant in the case. Thereupon, by filing the instant application, the applicant herein has challenged the summoning order dated 11.09.2018, after about six years of the summoning order passed by the trial court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, though the company was made an accused in the complaint case filed by the opposite party no.2, however vide summoning order 11.09.2018, the company has not been summoned by the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that since the part payment has already been made by the applicant, therefore, there was no liability as stated in the complaint against the applicant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the cheques in question were lost by the opposite party no.2, for which an NCR was lodged by the applicant herein, which has been misutilized by the opposite party no.2. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the instant case against the applicant.

¶12

So far as the first submission that only the Directors and the Managing Directors have been summoned and the company has not been summoned, the issue is fully covered with the judgment of this Court dated 19.09.2024 passed in Application under Section 482 No. 4898 of 2019 (Kishore Shankar Signapurkar vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein it has been categorically held after considering the various judgments passed by the Apex Court that by summoning the Managing Directors and the Directors, who had issued the cheque, the company shall be deemed to have been summoned as the company is a juristic person, which can be summoned only through natural persons, who are the Managing Directors and the Directors of the company. The other submissions, which are raised by the applicant with regard to their being no liability and the cheque was lost and misutilized, are the defences of the applicant, which can very well be taken by the trial court during the trial of the case.

¶13

In view thereof, the instant application lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Ashish Pd.

¶15

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶16

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

Ram Avtar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Avtar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Khushbu Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Chanda Construction and Developers through Proprietor Gitesh Kumar Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Ahuja vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Singh and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Naresh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of Upand Another