High Court dismissed an application under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of trial court orders in a cheque dishonour matter. The Court held that no case for interference was made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7362 of 2024 Applicant :- Bal Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Verma,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
And
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7382 of 2024 Applicant :- Bal Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Verma,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Komal Prasad, Advocate who files his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the respondent no. 2 which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the issue involved in an Application U/S 482 No. 7382 of 2024 is the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear both the petitions together. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Application U/S 482 No. 7362 of 2024 are being taken.
Instant application under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (Previously Section 482 Cr.P.C) has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 288 of 2023 Inre; Bal Krishna Vs. State of U.P and Ors.
From a perusal of records it emerges that a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been issued by the applicant which was not honoured which has resulted in the respondent no. 2 filing an application under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1881"). The learned Court has issued a summoning order dated 10.05.2023 which has been challenged. The Court had summoned the applicant herein. During pendency of the case, an order dated 10.05.2023 was passed by the learned Trial Court (page 69) which has been challenged by filing Criminal Revision No. 287 of 2023 which,
on a technicality has been rejected vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the application. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the instant application has been filed.
Various grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in order to challenge both the orders namely (a) that the cheque had been given by the applicant believing the respondent no. 2 that the original cheque that had been given by him, has been misplaced and (b) there is no liability for payment of the aforesaid amount.
The aforesaid grounds though attractive on the face of record merit outright rejection inasmuch as the the Apex Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 694-695 of 2022 decided on 26.04.2022 has held that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not required to hold a mini trial. Apart from that, the fact of the matter remains that the cheque that has been issued by the applicant has not been honoured and consequently, the offence under the provisions of the Act, 1881 has arisen for which a complaint has been filed.
Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected.
Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Pachhere/-
Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) jurisdiction should be exercised to quash proceedings arising from dishonoured cheque where the applicant claimed the cheque was given under a mispla
Whether the initiating police proceedings and trial court orders warrant the High Court's interference in special jurisdiction under the Code.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Explained¶11
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 694-695 of 2022 decided on 26.04.2022
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bal Krishna
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Abdul Moin
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
