Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Ministry Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024A482/5618/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging the demand notice was issued after the statutory 30-day period. The court, while staying further proceedings, positively permitted the issuance of notice to the State and listed the matter for arguments, rather than disposing of the quashing application.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 126400 of 2023 were stayed in the meantime; notice issued to opposite party no. 2 with direction to return at an early date.

Kaushal Kishor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5618 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Kaushal Kishor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Ministry Home Govt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Govind Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 30.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Court No. 7, Lucknow, impugned NBW issued on 06.05.2024 and entire proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuance of Criminal Complaint Case No. 126400 of 2023 (Alok Kumar Vs. Kaushal Kishor), under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as to stay the further proceeding in pursuance thereof.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that a cheque was said to be issued on 30th of June, 2023 and thereafter the same was presented by the complainant on 01.07.2023 to the bank concerned and, admittedly, the same was returned back on 03.07.2023 to the applicant while endorsing "insufficient balance". He further submitted that, admittedly, the demand notice was issued on 8th of August, 2023 which is not permissible under the law, as Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 clearly prescribes a bar that the demand notice cannot be issued after 30 days of the bounce of the cheque.

¶8

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases, page 424 (Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another) and submitted that in the identical matters, the Apex Court has very clearly held that unless the condition of Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act is satisfied, no proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 can go on. Therefore, submission is that the proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 126400 of 2023 may be quashed.

¶9

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that there is

¶10

no unlawfulness in the order impugned dated 30.01.2024 and, thus, the instant application is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

The matter requires consideration.

¶12

Let the notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶13

Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

List/put up in the first week of August, 2024.

¶15

In the meantime, further proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 126400 of 2023 (Alok Kumar Vs. Kaushal Kishor), under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.6.2024

¶17

kkv/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Ministry Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Ministry Home Govt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jai Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Heera Lal Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Nazme Hasan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajai Prakash Upadhyaya @ Ajai Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sandeep @ Muttan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another