Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024A482/7412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Section 482 CrPC challenged a summoning order in a cheque-dishonour complaint under Section 138 NI Act, contending the cheque was issued for repayment of a personal loan and that an undisclosed FIR vitiated the complaint. The court found no bar on filing such complaint despite an FIR and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57522

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7412 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Rastogi holding brief of Shri Rakesh Chandra Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed raising a challenge to the summoning order dated 24.08.2022, a copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition, in Case No.54996 of 2022 In re Dashrat Mahto vs Dinesh Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1881') passed by the learned Additional Court, Lucknow.

¶8

Further prayer is to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶9

3. The ground as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque for which the aforesaid complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 was not issued in any business transaction or otherwise rather had only been issued for repayment when the petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent No.2 for the purpose of treatment of his mother and as such for the alleged bouncing of the cheque, offence as per the provisions of the Act, 1881 is not attracted. The other ground is that the respondent No.2 has already lodged an FIR just to harass the petitioner and there is no disclosure made in the complaint, which had been filed under the provisions of the Act, 1881 pertaining to lodging of the FIR. Further in the statement which has been recorded under the provisions of Act, 1881 the complainant has not disclosed about lodging of the FIR.

¶10

4. All the aforesaid grounds are found to be patently fallacious

¶11

inasmuch as there is no bar under the provisions of Act, 1881 that in case an FIR has been lodged for any offence whatsoever, a complaint under the provisions of Act, 1881 cannot be filed. The fact of the matter is that in case the cheque had been issued by a person and the same is bounced prima facie offence under the provisions of the Act, 1881 can be said to have been committed for which the learned court has proceeded to issue the summoning order. Merely because the fact of lodging of an FIR for any offence has not been disclosed in the said complaint would not vitiate the complaint which has been filed under the provisions of the Act, 1881.

¶12

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 prateek

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile X Thru. His Maternal Uncle Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Rahul Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 5 Others

Munish Chandra @ Munish Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnapal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Praveen Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Shiv Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 Others