Kayyum Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38652

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36592 of 2024

Applicant :- Kayyum Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This is an application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur and the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1769 of 2018 (Mohd. Vakeel vs. Kayyum) U/s 138 of N.I. Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a complaint stood lodged under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant on 15.02.2018 preferable to dishonouring of three cheques amounting to Rs. 10 lac each which were tendered for the first time in the bank on 01.11.2017 and the same stood returned on the ground that the account had been closed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with respect to the leaflet of the cheques bearing no. 133281 to 133305 being 25 in number, the same signed and was stolen from a car. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited the attention of the Court towards at page 67 of the paper book wherein a malicious prosecution were sought to be lodged against the applicant in complaint case no. 829 of 2018 (Rahisudding vs. Kayyum) in which the applicant was accorded interim protection in application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 43045 of 2018. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the proceedings stood stayed in by a motion of the applicant, now the opposite party no.2 has planted a new story and the proceedings have been lodged. He further submits that with respect to the missing cheques which happened to be stolen, the applicant has also lodged a first information report on 07.02.2018 being FIR No. 0161, under section 406 IPC against Rais, Hasmuddind and Gulzar.

¶9

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever the arguments are being sought to be raised, they center around factual

¶10

aspect which cannot be gone in the present proceedings.

¶11

Having heard the arguments so advanced across the bar, the only question which arise for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings. Apparently, three cheques of an amount of Rs. 10 lac stood dishonoured. Apart from the same, the theory so sought to be propounded by the applicant that an FIR stood lodged on 07.02.2018 at 19:50 hrs relatable to the stolen cheques on 30.10.2017 cannot be gone into particularly when these are the matter of defences. Even otherwise, this Court is not required to go into the factual scores as the stage has not arisen. Nevertheless, that might be a defence which can be taken when the trial commences. In absence of showing of any jurisdictional error, this Court is not required to dealt into the factual issue.

¶12

Accordingly, the application is rejected and is consigned to record.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 C. MANI

¶14

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kayyum v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayyum v. State of U.P. and Another

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