Dismissed

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024A482/38007/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons in a cheque bounce case. Court held factual disputes regarding cheque misuse not grounds to quash at this stage and dismissed application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of summoning order and proceedings dismissed; liberty to apply for bail below.

Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181535

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38007 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Narendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajeev Kumar Sonkar, learned State Law Officer appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 30.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1312 of 2021 (Ujagar Singh Vs. Narendra Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.02, Prayagraj.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was missing cheque which has been misused by the opposite party no.2 and after presenting the same before the Bank, he filed the impugned complaint, therefore, impugned complaint may be quashed.

¶9

Sri Rajeev Kumar Sonkar, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that grounds raised by learned counsel for the applicant are his defense and disputed question of fact that cannot be considered at the stage of quashing the impugned proceeding.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the issue raised by learned counsel for the applicant are his defense being dispute question of fact that can be considered during trial and definitely cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding.

¶11

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings and the present application is dismissed .

¶12

It is further provided that the applicant is at liberty to apply for bail before the court below.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.11.2024 Jitendra

¶14

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

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh 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

Similar cases

Wasim Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Danish vs State of U.P. and Another.

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

Rakesh Ram Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohan Lal vs State of Up and Another

Sonu Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another