Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order in a cheque bounce case was rejected. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding liability and security cheques cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It followed precedent to presume notice service within 10 days despite no date being mentioned.
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:177764
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24591 of 2024
Applicant :- Tathagat Rice Mill Pvt Ltd And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth,Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024 S.Chaurasia
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint under Section 138 NI Act is premature due to no date of service of notice being mentioned.
Whether the existence of a subsisting liability and the nature of the cheque as a security cheque can be examined at the quashing stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherFollowed¶12
Rajendra Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2024 (5) ADJ 758
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tathagat Rice Mill Pvt Ltd And 2 Others
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
