Dismissed

Shuaib Ahmad @ Suhaib Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024NA528/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash a summoning order in a cheque bounce case under Section 528 BNSS/Section 138 NI Act, the Court held that since a prima facie offence was made out, no interference was warranted as the applicant must raise objections before the trial court. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the summoning order was dismissed.

Shuaib Ahmad @ Suhaib Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. the… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51368

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shuaib Ahmad @ Suhaib Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shadab Waheed,Syed Raza Mehdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Instant application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 06.11.2023 passed by learned Prescribed Authority, Additional Court No.1, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.95357 of 2022 in re: Abhishek Singh vs. Suhaib Ahmad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1881').

¶8

Perusal of the order impugned would indicate that a cheque issued for Rs.45 lakhs by respondent no.2 has not been honoured which has resulted in filing of a case by respondent no.2 under the provisions of the Act, 1881 and consequently the applicant has been summoned.

¶9

Perusal of the order impugned would indicate, as already indicated above, that the cheque issued by the applicant herein was not honoured and as such prima facie an offence under the provisions of the Act, 1881 is made out.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to take the Court through various pleas including a sale deed having been executed, notice not having been served etc. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh-2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 has held that High Court's power under Section 482 is very limited and that High Court cannot conduct a mini trial at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶11

Likewise, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal-1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held more than two decades back that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly while exercising

¶12

power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint.

¶13

The aforesaid proposition of law has again been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan - (2016) 16 SCC 30 and again recently in the case of Manik B. vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 .

¶14

Once prima facie from a perusal of the summoning order an offence is made out against the applicant as such, there cannot be any interference and it is always open for the applicant to raise any objections or pleas that he may have before the court concerned.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 A. Katiyar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shuaib Ahmad @ Suhaib Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shuaib Ahmad @ Suhaib Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Shahjad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dulli Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Pappu Pal @ Shri Narayan Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

M/S S.N. Aaloo Company Thru. Proprietor Nadeem Ahmad vs Deena Nath

Amrendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another