Dismissed

Baghel Transport Thru. Its Prop. Ajay Kumar Baghel v. the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025A482/2905/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint concerning a dishonoured cheque of about Rs.1.04 crore, claiming the cheque had been lost and intimated to police and bank. The court held the loss claim must be proven at trial and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Baghel Transport Thru. Its Prop. Ajay Kumar Baghel Vs the… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19133

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2905 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Baghel Transport Thru. Its Prop. Ajay Kumar Baghel

¶5

Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Dixit,Awdhesh Kumar Kumar Singh Suryavanshi,Varun Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Varun Chandra, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

By means of the present application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.), the applicant has challenged the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 459 of 2020 (Anuj Gupta Vs. Baghel Transport and others), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow pending in the court of learned Additional Court No. 6, Lucknow.

¶10

The brief facts as submitted by learned counsel for applicants are that a complaint has been lodged by opposite party no. 2, who is proprietor of the Firm M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises stating that he has business relations with the applicant for unloading construction material on sites and it is in the course of the business transaction that the opposite party no. 2 had sought money from the applicants and in return the applicant had issued a cheque bearing No. 000077 dated 30.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,04,18,241/-, which on representation was dishonoured and consequently, a complaint was filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has vehemently submitted that firstly the entire proceedings initiated by opposite party no. 2 are on the basis of false and fabricated material, inasmuch as, the said cheque had been lost and intimation in this regard was given to the Police Station Chinhat on 25.05.2016 and also to the concerned bank on the same day. Apart from the above, the applicant has denied that there is any liability towards the complainant and consequently, entire proceedings deserve to be set aside for the aforesaid reasons.

¶12

It is noticed that after considering the copy of the complaint as well as statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the trial court by means of order dated 25.09.2024 had taken into account all the foundation facts as provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and found that the cheque drawn by the applicant was issued in favour of the complainant on 30.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,04,18,241/-, which has been dishonoured on account of "the account being closed".

¶13

It is noticed that even in case when the cheque has been dishonoured on account of the fact that the account closed proceeding in such a case can be drawn up under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2012 (13) SCC 375. Considering the statement of the applicant that in 2016 itself he had intimated the fact about the cheque being lost to the bank as well as to the police station concerned. It is noticed that no NCR was registered and accordingly, this fact would have to be proved to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned about the loss of cheque. Merely by perusal of a letter written to the police station would not be a conclusive proof itself with regard to the said fact.

¶14

After hearing submissions of learned counsel for applicant, it is noticed that grounds raised by him are merely in defence, which may be taken by the applicant before the trial court at the appropriate stage where he will have full opportunity to prove his case. This Court has also taken into account the fact that with regard to the same incident, an FIR was also lodged by the complainant and the applicant had preferred a writ petition before this Court where interference was shown by this Court. Even when the charge sheet was filed by the police after investigation, the proceedings in the criminal case has been stayed by means of order dated 28.03.2024 in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 2787 of 2024. While passing the said order, the Court had observed that the matter is of civil nature and even otherwise, opposite party no. 2 could have filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where the summons would have been duly served upon the applicant. It shall be open for him to appear and take all the defence as admissible under law.

¶15

In the aforesaid circumstances, no case for interference is made out. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is therefore, dismissed.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Virendra

¶18

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

Baghel Transport Thru. Its Prop. Ajay Kumar Baghel v. the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Baghel Transport Thru. Its Prop. Ajay Kumar Baghel v. the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Shashi Khurana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Neklal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramji @ Ramji Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Roop Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Lallan Yadav @ Lallan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another