Dismissed

Ram Babu Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024A482/4643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a summoning order in a cheque dishonour case. The applicant claimed misused cheques were lost upon leaving a job. The court held these submissions were mere defences permissible at the trial stage and found no ground to interfere with the summons under Section 139 N.I. Act.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of summoning order and proceedings was dismissed.

Ram Babu Singh vs State of Up and Another — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110289

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

(Sl.No.17)

Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4643 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Ram Babu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Agrawal,Uttam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Uttam Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 231 of 2023 (Computer Registration No. 183746 of 2023) (Anil Agrawal vs. Ram Babu Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Link Road, District-Ghaziabad as well as entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the employee of the opposite party no. 2 and when he left the job, the cheques, which were already misplaced for which a missing report was also lodged by the applicant on 10.05.2023, have been misused by the opposite party no. 2, who has filed the instant complaint case. Therefore, he prays for quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint case against the applicant herein.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A for the State opposed the prayer for quashing the summoning order and submits that from the missing report dated 10.5.2023, it is not clear whether it were the same cheques which are alleged to be misused as only five cheques were stated to have been lost but cheque numbers have not been given in the missing report. Therefore, it cannot be relied that it were the same cheques which were issued by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2. Learned A.G.A. further submits that nowhere

¶13

in the instant application the applicant has denied the signature on the cheque, therefore, presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act, is attracted. The submission with regard to the missing of cheques is a defence of the applicant which can very well be taken before the trial court.

¶14

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record.

¶15

Undisputedly, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he was the employee of the opposite party no. 2. In the complaint, it has been stated that various amounts have been given to the applicant by the opposite party no. 2 during his employment and for repayment of the same a cheque of Rs. 9,00,000/- was issued by the applicant which was dishonored, therefore, after completing the formality under Section 138 N.I. Act, the instant complaint case was filed by the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, prima facie a case is made out. Having regard to the presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act, the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 17.11.2023 and from the perusal thereof, this Court do not find any illegality in the summoning order. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, these are the defence which can very well be taken by the applicant during the trial of the case. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good reason to make any interference in the present application.

¶16

For the aforesaid reasons, the application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Kirti

¶18

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Babu Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu Singh v. State of Up 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

Premnath vs State of U.P. and Another

Naveen Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Geeta Krishan vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Heera Lal Saxena Director vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Suryakant Sharma and Another vs R.K. Mohta Director