Sonu Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Section 482 CrPC quashing application against a cheque-dishonour complaint and summoning order, arguing the complaint omitted the firm on whose behalf the cheque was issued. Counsel sought time to file documents showing the firm's registration and nature; case adjourned with no coercive action till then.
What did the court decide?
Interim protection: no coercive action against applicant until next hearing.
What the court decided
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23821 of 2024
Applicant :- Sonu Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
- Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State.
- The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1222 of 2023 (Km. Roli vs. Sonu Vishwakarma), under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Gajraula, District-Amroha, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Amroha and the summoning order dated 15.09.2023 as well as the order dated 08.07.2024.
- Sole contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that cheque in question was issued on behalf of proprietorship firm, namely, S.P. Construction, but the impugned complaint was filed without impleading the firm in question. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. However, learned counsel for the applicant did not file any documents showing whether S.P. Construction is a partnership firm or a company.
- At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to file the required documents, showing the registration and nature of the firm in question.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Is a complaint under Section 138 NI Act maintainable if the proprietorship/partnership firm on whose behalf the cheque was issued is not impleaded?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sonu Vishwakarma
- respondent
State of U.P.
- respondent
Km. Roli
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/23821/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court