Dismissed

Abrar Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024A482/9182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the plea to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that allegations of a missing cheque and forged sale deed were defenses capable of being adjudicated during trial and did not disclose an illegality warranting quashing.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Abrar Alam vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174058

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9182 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Abrar Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Rai,Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satya Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case no. 980 of 2017 ( Shibba vs. Abrar Alam ), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor, including summoning order dated 25.5.2018.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was a missing cheque regarding which an intimation was also given to the bank on 17.8.2017. As per the complaint itself the cheque in question was issued by the applicant to return the money which was given to him by opposite party No.2 as consideration to purchase a land through a sale deed which was subsequently found to be forged. It is further submitted that the applicant was neither the vendor nor the witness in the aforesaid sale deed, therefore, the question of giving any cheque in discharge of any liability does not arise. It is also submitted that an application for registration of F.I.R. was also filed by opposite party No.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the forgery committed in execution of sale deed, but in that application itself the name of the applicant was not mentioned as an accused. It is lastly submitted that a bare perusal of the two cheques, annexed with the paper book, shows that the signature of the applicant has been forged by opposite party No.2 to use the missing cheque, therefore, the impugned proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶10

However, learned A.G.A. submits that all the grounds, raised by the applicant, are his defence and disputed questions of the fact, therefore, the same cannot be the ground to quash the impugned

¶11

proceeding.

¶12

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the complaint, allegations were made that the applicant along with other persons persuaded opposite party No.2 to purchase the land for consideration of Rs. 18,85,000/-. Subsequently, it was found that the sale deed was forged as the same was executed by the imposter of the land owners and thereafter, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant as well as other co-accused persons. After registration of the F.I.R., a compromise took place and just to return the consideration, paid by opposite party No.2, applicant gave him two cheques. However, both the cheques were returned by the bank for insufficiency of fund. Thereafter, those cheques were again presented and on again bouncing of the same a demand notice was sent to the applicant and on non-payment of the cheque amount, the complaint was filed after expiry of the prescribed period.

¶13

So far as the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the cheque in question was missing, regarding which the applicant had already given information to the bank, is concerned, it appears that the complaint in the present case was filed on 7.11.2017 for the cheques which were handed over to opposite party No.2 in the month of August, 2017 and cheques were returned by the bank for insufficiency of fund and not for the difference in signature. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court has already observed in a number of cases that if there is any complaint regarding missing cheque that will be a ground that can be taken during trial. However, proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of that ground itself.

¶14

So, far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any liability is concerned, this ground also is a defence of the applicant which can be taken during trial and the same cannot be the ground to quash the impugned proceeding.

¶15

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Vandana

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abrar Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar Alam v. State of U.P. 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

Smt. Fatima Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mohammad Wakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Shabbir Alias Mohd. Shabbir Azad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Shailendra Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivraj Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kashif vs State of U.P. and Another