Dismissed

Raeesuddin Urf Raees v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024A482/25247/2024

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 cheque dishonour case. The Court held that the dispute regarding liability is a matter for trial, as the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act can only be rebutted with cogent evidence during the trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raeesuddin Urf Raees vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149900

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl.No.25)

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25247 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Raeesuddin Urf Raees Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Saxena, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 20.11.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3388 of 2018 (Manmohan vs. Raeesuddin urf Raees), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I.Act'), P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Moradabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the cheque in question was issued by the applicant in connection with the business transaction. However, there was no liability on the part of the applicant. Therefore, he submits that the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act would not attract in the instant case and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is not maintainable. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA submits that once the issuance of cheque is admitted by the applicant, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shall be drawn against the applicant and it is open for the applicant to rebut the presumption by leading the cogent evidence before the trial court concerned to establish that there was no liability on his part.

¶12

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that the amount of Rs. 13,70,000/- was advanced by the opposite party no.2 to the

¶13

applicant and in discharge of that liability, the applicant has issued cheque of Rs. 9,00,000/- and 4,70,000/- respectively, which were presented for encashment on 08.05.2018 and were dishonoured for the reason "fund insufficient" on 09.05.2018. Thereafter, on 18.05.2018, the legal demand notice was issued by the opposite party no.2, which was received by the applicant on 01.06.2018. Despite the receipt of the notice, the applicant has not complied with the demand notice within prescribed period, therefore, on 18.06.2018 the complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, from the aforesaid complaint case, a categorical case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out against the applicant.

¶14

The submission of the applicant is that there was no liability on his part, is the matter of trial whereby the applicant has to prove the fact that there was no liability by leading the cogent evidence before the trial court to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

¶15

In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Ashish Pd.

¶17

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶18

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

Raeesuddin Urf Raees v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raeesuddin Urf Raees v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Gupta vs State of Up and Another

Vandna Yadav vs State of Upand 3 Others

Shyam Babu Awasthi Alias Gappu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irfan Ahmad and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another

Cosmopolitan Public Senior Secondary School and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Sai Nath Trading Company through Its Proprietor Amit Verma vs State of Up and Another