Disposed

Syed Zahid Mahmood and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024A482/24937/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application sought quashing of Section 138 NI Act cheque proceedings on the ground that the cheque was missing. The Bank's affidavit showed the alleged stop-payment intimation letter of 10.09.2022 was never received; the Court found it prima facie forged but declined contempt referral at counsel's request.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as not pressed with Rs.10,000 costs payable to complainant; SSP Aligarh to inquire into forgery and register FIR if persons responsible are found.

Syed Zahid Mahmood and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189153

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24937 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Syed Zahid Mahmood And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the State Bank of India is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for State Bank of India and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶9

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 534 of 2023 (M/S Architect Chamber, Proprietor Shafi Mohammad Vs. Syed Zahid Mahmood and Smt. Shama Zahid) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.) Act Police Station Civil Line District Aligarh and that of impugned summoning order dated 20.9.2023 passed by Prescribed Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh in the aforesaid case.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 534 of 2023 (M/S Architect Chamber, Proprietor Shafi Mohammad Vs. Syed Zahid Mahmood and Smt. Shama Zahid) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.) Act Police Station Civil Line District Aligarh pending in the court of Prescribed Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble court so that justice may be done otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury Ano/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶11

From perusal of record, it appears that the applicants contended that the cheque in question was a missing cheque, regarding which, he had also intimated to the Police

¶12

as well as Bank through letter dated 10.09.2022 for stopping the payment of said cheque. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has also annexed the letter dated 10.09.2022, having the receiving of State Bank of India, Aligarh Muslim University Branch, Aligarh at page no.7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2024.

¶13

This Court vide order dated 23.11.2024 directed the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aligarh Muslim University Branch, Aligarh to submit information through its panel lawyer whether the Bank has received letter dated 10.09.2022 on behalf of the applicants for stopping the payment of cheque in question, as the same was missing. Copy of the order dated 23.11.2024 is being quoted as under:

¶14

"1. Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶15

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Prescribed Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh as well as entire proceeding of Case No.534 of 2023, under Sections 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Civil Line, District Aligarh.

¶16

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was missing and he had already informed the police on 12.09.2022 prior to the impugned complaint. He also intimated about missing of cheque book to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, AMU Branch, Aligarh on 10.09.2022. Therefore, the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any liability and the same was missing cheque.

¶17

4. From perusal of the intimation letter sent to the Bank dated 10.09.2022, it appears that neither series of cheque book nor cheque numbers has been mentioned in the intimation letter dated 10.09.2022. Even otherwise, from perusal of intimation letter dated 10.09.2022, it appears that no date of receiving was mentioned by the Bank concerned.

¶18

5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aligarh Muslim University Branch, Aligarh is directed to send the information through panel counsel to this Court on which date information was given by applicant to the Bank regarding missing of cheque book of A/C No.32253135975 and also whether the letter dated 10.09.2022 annexed at page 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2024 is genuine letter.

¶19

6. Put up this case as fresh on 3rd December, 2024.

¶20

7. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to inform the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aligarh Muslim University Branch, Aligarh through email as well as phone."

¶21

In pursuance of the order dated 23.11.2024, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the State Bank of India, has filed the affidavit of the Deputy Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aligarh Muslim University Branch, Aligarh, in which, it is mentioned in paragraph nos.5 and 6 that the letter dated 10.09.2022 annexed by the applicants with his supplementary affidavit was never received by the Bank. It is also mentioned in those paragraphs that the Bank maintains a register regarding the application received for stopping the payment of cheques and the extract of register from 17.08.2022 to 10.11.2022 has also been annexed with this affidavit. It is further mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank that 10.09.2022 was a second Saturday and the Bank was closed on that date. Therefore, the question of receiving such letter does not arise at all.

¶22

From the above affidavit of the State Bank of India, it is clear that the letter dated 10.09.2022, annexed at page no.7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2024, prima facie appears to be forged, which had been prepared outside the Court and filed in the judicial proceeding just to obtain

¶23

favourable order.

¶24

From the facts mentioned hereinbefore, it is clear that deponent, Syed Ali Usman, who is son of the applicants, apart from filing the forged letter dated 10.09.2022, also made incorrect statement in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2024, that this letter was given to the Bank to stop the payment, which was clearly denied by the Bank through an affidavit. Therefore, applicants have abused the process of High Court through their son Syed Ali Usman by filing a forged letter dated 10.09.2022, which was allegedly to be an intimation to the State Bank of India. Though, filing a false affidavit amounts to criminal contempt to this Court but considering the request of Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, who is a junior advocate, this Court resists itself from referring this matter for contempt proceedings.

¶25

Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the letter dated 10.09.2022, having seal of receiving by State Bank of India, was filed by him, after receiving the same from the deponent (Syed Ali Usman) of that affidavit and there is no mode to check the genuineness of the same. This Court accepts the submission of learned counsel for the applicants as correct and his request to dismiss the case as not pressed, so far as the relief claimed is concerned, is accepted.

¶26

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as not pressed , but considering the fact that the applicants have filed a false document/letter dated 10.09.2022 to mislead this Court, therefore, cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the

¶27

applicants, which shall be deposited by the applicants before the Court below and shall be payable to the complainant, failing which, the District Magistrate, Aligarh will recover the same as arrears of land revenue.

¶28

This Court also directs the SSP, Aligarh to conduct a preliminary inquiry against the person(s) involved in preparing the forged letter dated 10.09.2022, annexed to the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2024 filed by the applicants and thereafter, on finding the person responsible, investigate the matter after registering an FIR.

¶29

The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send copy of this order along with copy of affidavit dated 07.11.2024 filed on behalf of the applicants to the SSP, Aligarh for necessary compliance.

¶30

Accordingly, present application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶31

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Syed Zahid Mahmood and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Zahid Mahmood and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxmi Narayan Dinkar vs State of U.P. and ANOther

Lasai Alias Shiv Mohan vs State of U.P. and Another

Shammi Kapoor vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayodhya Prasad Gupta vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. and Another