Satendra @ Satyendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

Satendra @ Satyendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Judicial paras 2-3 framed the question: whether the summoning order dated 13.05.2024 and the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 59 of 2024 (under Section 138 N.I. Act) should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the applicant's contention that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any liability but was a missing cheque misused by opposite party no. 2.

Court's answer

Judicial para 5: Nothing on record shows that the applicant ever informed the Bank or police that the cheque was missing.

Ratio / Principle

Judicial para 5: Such a dispute may not be raised at the time of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; raising it at that stage is not permissible.

Key takeaways

Judicial para 5: Being a disputed question of fact, the ground can be raised by the applicant during trial and cannot be considered at this stage to quash the impugned proceeding.ratio¶10
Judicial para 6: This Court finds no illegality in the impugned proceedings.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Missing-cheque defence barred at the quashing stage - Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed: Satendra @ Satyendra Kumar Mishra sought quashing of the summoning order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 6, Mirzapur, and the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 59 of 2024 (Basanti Devi Vs. Satendra @ Sanyendra Kumar Mishra) under Section 138 N.I. Act, contending that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any liability but was a missing cheque misused by opposite party no. 2. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. held (judicial para 5) that nothing on record showed the applicant had ever informed the Bank or police about the missing cheque; raising such a dispute at the time of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not permissible, and being a disputed question of fact it could be raised by the applicant during trial. Finding no illegality in the impugned proceedings (judicial para 6), the High Court dismissed the application on 06.01.2025 (Court No. 77; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:2342).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2342

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22521 of 2024

Applicant :- Satendra @ Satyendra Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ratan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

Heard Sri Ratan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 13.05.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No.6, Mirzapur as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No.59 of 2024 (Basanti Devi Vs. Satendra @ Sanyendra Kumar Mishra), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any liability and same was missing cheque which has been misused by the opposite party no.2 and after presenting the same before the Bank, he filed the impugned complaint, therefore, impugned complaint may be quashed.

Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that grounds raised by learned counsel for the applicant are his defense and disputed question of fact that cannot be considered at the stage of quashing the impugned proceeding.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that there is nothing on record that the applicant has ever informed to the Bank or police about the missing of the cheque and raising sane dispute at the time of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is not permissible. Even otherwise being a disputed question of fact that can be raised by the applicant during trial. However, this ground cannot be considered at this stage to quash the impugned

proceeding.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings and the present application is dismissed .

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Jitendra

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad