Dismissed¶11

Saurabh Kumar Seth v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025A482/38347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 N.I. Act; security cheque plea rejected as disputed question of fact; quashing of summoning order refused; Complaint Case No. 5692 of 2023 (Vikas Gujrati vs. Saurabh Kumar Seth), P.S. Kotwali, District Varanasi; Application U/S 482 No. 38347 of 2024; cheque amount Rs.5,60,000/-; demand notice and 15 days non-payment; no illegality in proceeding; application dismissed; Allahabad High Court; single bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.; Order Date 7.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:2623.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the cheque was issued as a security cheque is misconceived: there is nothing on record to show that it was issued as a security cheque, and in any event the plea is the applicant's defence raising a disputed question of fact which cannot be looked into at this stage. ¶10

Saurabh Kumar Seth vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2623

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38347 of 2024 Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Seth Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 23.3.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 5692 of 2023 ( Vikas Gujrati vs. Saurabh Kumar Seth ), u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Varanasi and stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any liability and the same was issued as a security cheque, therefore, the impugned proceeding is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that the plea raised by the applicant is his defence which cannot be considered at this stage, being disputed question of fact.

¶9

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears from the averments in the complaint that Rs.5,60,000/- was given by opposite party No.2 to the applicant in a business deal. Subsequently, in discharge of that liability the cheque in question was issued by the applicant and when that cheque was presented before the bank, the same was returned. Thereafter, a demand notice was given to the applicant, however, despite expiry of 15 days from the date of receiving the demand notice, the cheque amount was not paid by the applicant. Thereafter the impugned complaint was filed.

¶10

The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the cheuqe was issued as a security cheque is misconceived because there is nothing on record to show that the same was issued as a security cheque. Even otherwise, the same is the defence of the applicant which is also a disputed question of fact that cannot be looked into at this stage.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 7.1.2025

¶13

Vandana

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Kumar Seth v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Kumar Seth 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

Similar cases

M.E.S. Enterprises vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Upadhyay and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra @ Satyendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Ammar and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Kasim Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood Hussain vs State of U.P. and Another