Dismissed

Satendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024A482/24793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summoning orders in a cheque dishonour case. The court held that defects in notice service are matters to be raised during trial and do not warrant quashing proceedings, citing that summoning orders cannot be recalled by the same court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Satendra Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170666

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24793 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pushpendra Kumar Jadon, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 18.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut as well as the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.1, Meerut including the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.10089 of 2020, under Sections 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station - Lalkurti, District Meerut.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the demand notice was sent on incorrect address of the applicant and after summoning the applicant, that address was also corrected, therefore proceeding cannot be proceeded as notice itself was not served being sent on incorrect address.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA submits that these defence can be taken during trial and cannot be a ground for quashing of the proceeding.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that after sending the demand notice, complaint was filed after expiry of statutory period and on summoning, the applicant also appeared before the court below and obtained bail and he has been contesting the case. Thereafter, the applicant filed objection that notice was not properly served upon him for want of correct address and that application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 30.01.2024 on the ground that the applicant can raise all ground during trial. On this ground, trial cannot be terminated Even otherwise in view of the judgement of the Apex

¶11

Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs Ruplal Jindal and others; 2004 (7) SCC 338 summoning order cannot be recalled by the same court.

¶12

As the applicant has remedy to take all objections during trial and on the objection, notice was not served upon the applicant, proceeding cannot be quashed. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding or order.

¶13

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 A.Kr.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar Jain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phool Chandra and Another vs State of Up and Another

Daya Shankar@ Shankar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Singh Alias Munna and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Banke Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another