Disposed

Ajay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024A482/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging a summoning order for offence under Section 406 I.P.C arising from a cheque dishonour. The court noted that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the same cheque is already pending. Holding that the separate criminal proceedings appear barred by Section 142 of the NI Act, the court stayed the proceedings pending f

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1309 of 2021 under Section 406 I.P.C stayed until next date of listing.

Ajay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 74 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Charu Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶5

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has challenged the validity of the summoning order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda in Complaint Case No. 1309 of 2021, under Section 406 I.P.C and the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C Naveen, Gonda in Criminal Revision No. 27/2023 filed against the aforesaid order.

¶6

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner had set up a business in partnership, After some dispute occurred between them, they decided to part ways and the opposite party no.2 claims that the applicant had given him a Cheque No. 025190 of Rs. 3,78,000/-, which was returned by the bank unpaid. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint No. 132/2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is pending consideration of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda and the applicant has already been summoned in that complaint case.

¶7

On the basis of same set of allegations, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C wherein he wrongly mentioned the number of the cheque to be '2710 22102', and he alleged commission of offence under Section 406 I.P.C.

¶8

A copy of the cheque dated 15.11.2019 issued by the applicant in favor of the opposite party no. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/- has been annexed with the application, which indicates that the no. of cheque is 02510 and thereafter nos. '2710 22102 and 000006 and 31' are also written on the bottom of the cheque.

¶9

Apparently, the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been filed in respect of the same cheque regarding which a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has already been filed by the opposite party no. 2 and which is pending consideration of the competent court.

¶10

Initiation of the present proceedings appeared to be barred by the provisions contained in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶11

The matter requires consideration.

¶12

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶13

The opposite parties may file a counter affidavit within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

¶14

List this case in the week commencing 12.02.2024.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the case in complaint case no. 1309 of 2021,under Section 406 I.P.C shall remain stayed.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Preeti.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Syed Masood Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Vimal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Moni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.