Disposed

Shri Nikant Jain and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A482/9287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings, the Court noted contentions regarding lack of legally enforceable debt and potential mala fides. The Court declined an immediate disposal of the plea for quashing, directing parties to file affidavits and setting the case for further listing while staying further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Stayed further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1106 of 2019 including execution of process; directed filing of counter-affidavits and rejoinder.

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9287 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shri Nikant Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Pranjal Jain

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Saxena and Shri Pranjal Jain, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the Complaint Case No.1106 of 2019, Cognizance Order and all other consequential proceedings passed by the Court of Additional Court, N. I. Act, Court No.5, Lucknow and Revisional Order dated 11.07.2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.1106 of 2019 "M/s. SBM Corporation vs. M/s SSJ Agrotech Private Limited and Nikant Jain" under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow District Lucknow pending before the Court of Additional Court, N. I. Act, Court No.5, Lucknow.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the present applicants have come to be summoned for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act without there being any legally enforceable debt and any cheque having been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. In order to substantiate his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed

¶10

reliance upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in para nos.10, 12 and 13 of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and another reported in (2023) 1 SCC 578 and para nos.10, 13, 15, 17 and 19 of M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. M/s Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and another reported in 2014 (12) SCC 539 .

¶11

Drawing attention of this Court to page 68 of the instant application, his further submission is that the transaction mentioned in complaint pertains to transfer of some land. Various cheques, which are mentioned in the photocopy of sale deed available at page 68 of the instant application, are quite different from the cheque (s) which are alleged to have been issued by the applicants. It, thus, shows the mala fide intention of opposite party no.2 to maliciously prosecute the applicants.

¶12

He has also submitted that even learned revisional court did not appreciate the aforesaid fact in its correct perspective, which led to passing of the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 in Criminal Revision No.395 of 2024 "Nikant Jain vs. M/S. MBM Corporation Pvt. Ltd."

¶13

His next submission is that non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants by the learned trial Court in this case is also in utter violation of principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 and in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 .

¶14

He, thus, submits that the pendency of the instant proceedings against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that it is not the stage to look into the disputed questions of facts and evidence. Therefore, the the

¶16

same is not liable to be quashed.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, the matter requires consideration.

¶18

Notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the office of learned A.G.A. and notice on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been accepted by Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

¶19

Let counter affidavit(s) be filed within four weeks.

¶20

A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

List this case immediately after expiry of aforesaid period.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings of Complaint Case No.1106 of 2019, under Sections 138/142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow including execution of any process issued therein, shall remain stayed.

¶23

When the case is listed next, the names of Shri Ajai Kumar Mishra and Shri Vishram Kumar Chauhan, Advocates shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Mahesh

¶25

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

Shri Nikant Jain and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nikant Jain and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Rahul Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Vikram @ Vicky Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikram @ Vicky vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another