Dismissed¶12

Subhash Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025A482/28714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition dismissed; Section 138 N.I. Act cheque dishonour proceeding; security cheque defence; amount already paid; pending civil suit for determination of correct amount; defence to be raised at trial, not at quashing stage; summoning order dated 01.07.2024 upheld; Complaint Case No.1029 of 2024; Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur; Allahabad High Court; single judge Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.; order date 9.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's contention that the cheque was issued as a security cheque and that the cheque amount has already been paid to opposite party no.3 is the defence of the applicant; it cannot be considered at the stage of quashing, and those grounds would be available to the applicant during trial — they cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding.

Subhash Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4628

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28714 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Subhash Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dwarika Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Dwarika Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 01.07.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1029 of 2024 (Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs. Subhash Kumar Pandey), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Koirau, District Bhadohi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, District Bhadohi.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was given to the opposite party no.3 as security cheque, though, the amount was paid to the opposite party no.3 in the year 2022 but the cheque in question which was given as security cheque for the loan taken by the opposite party no.3 was not returned to the applicant and same was misused by initiating the impugned proceeding. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a civil suit filed by the applicant is also pending regarding the determination of the correct amount which is payable by the applicant to the opposite party no.3, therefore, the impugned proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act deserves to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, 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 that cannot be considered at the time of quashing the impugned proceeding.

¶11

After hearing the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that as per the averment of the complaint, in discharge of liability of Rs.5,00,000/- applicant has issued a cheque dated 07.11.2023 to the opposite party no.3 which was subsequently dishonoured on 11.12.2023 and despite the demand of notice, no amount was paid then the impugned proceeding was initiated. So far as the contention of counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was issued as security cheque and though the amount of cheque has already been paid by the applicant to the opposite party no.3. This is the defense of the applicant which cannot be considered at this stage and these grounds would be available to the applicant during trial, definitely that cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Jitendra

¶14

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

Subhash Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakki Qureshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Anothaer

Smt. Savita Devi and 2 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

Rajeev Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Haji Mohd Wasi vs State of Up and Another