Dismissed¶13

Mahmood Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025A482/38498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application U/S 482 No. 38498 of 2024, Mahmood Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed on 7.1.2025 by Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. Keywords: quashing of summoning order refused; Section 138 N.I. Act; Complaint Case No. 412/IX/2024; Ram Pratap Singh Parihar; P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda; security cheque contention rejected as disputed question of fact; complaint averment 'few months back' sufficient for issuance of process; cheque of Rs. 8,70,000/- dated 2.2.2024 dishonoured; demand notice unanswered; grounds available during trial.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the cheque was issued as a security cheque and not in discharge of any liability is misconceived because there is nothing on record to show that the cheque in question was issued as a security cheque. ¶11

Mahmood Hussain vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the cheque issued by the applicant was a security cheque and not issued in discharge of any liability. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Even otherwise, the security-cheque claim is the applicant's own defence and constitutes a disputed question of fact which cannot be looked into at the application/quashing stage.

¶12

Key takeaways

The second contention (that the date of payment of the loan amount is not mentioned by opposite party no.2) is misconceived: simply making the averment in the complaint that Rs. 8,70,000/- was given to the applicant by opposite party no.2 as a loan few months back is sufficient for issuance of process, and all the grounds raised by the applicant remain available to him during trial.ratio¶12
This Court finds no illegality in the impugned proceeding and accordingly dismisses the application seeking quashing.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 77; Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.; Order dated 7.1.2025) dismissed Application U/S 482 No. 38498 of 2024 filed by Mahmood Hussain seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 26.9.2024 and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 412/IX/2024 (Ram Pratap Singh Parihar vs. Mahmood Hussain) under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda. Held: the averment in the complaint that a loan of Rs. 8,70,000/- was given to the applicant by opposite party no.2 'few months back', followed by issuance of a cheque of the same amount dated 2.2.2024, its dishonour on presentation, and non-payment despite demand notice, is sufficient for issuance of process; the contention that the cheque was merely a security cheque is misconceived, as nothing on record shows it to be so, and such claim is the drawer's own defence constituting a disputed question of fact which cannot be looked into at this stage; omission of the exact date of the advance of the loan is likewise immaterial, all such grounds remaining available to the applicant during trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2641

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38498 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahmood Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 26.9.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 412/IX/2024 ( Ram Pratap Singh Parihar vs. Mahmood Hussain ), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.

¶8

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. It is further submitted that in the complaint it was not mentioned as to when the loan amount of Rs.8,70,000/- was given to the applicant by opposite party No.2, therefore, the cheque in question cannot be said to be issued in discharge of any liability.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding.

¶10

After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the complaint it is clearly stated that a loan of Rs.8,70,000/- was given to the applicant few months back. Thereafter, for payment of that money, applicant issued a cheque of Rs.8,70,000/- dated 2.2.2024 and when the same was presented before the bank it was dishonoured. Thereafter, despite receiving the demand notice, no amount was paid by the applicant. Thereafter, the impugned complaint was filed.

¶11

The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the cheuqe was issued as security cheque and not in discharge of any liability is misconceived because there is nothing on record to show that the cheque in question was issued as security cheque. Even otherwise, the same is the defence of the applicant which is also a

¶12

disputed question of fact which cannot be looked into at this stage. The second contention that the date of payment of loan amount is not mentioned by opposite party No.2 in the complaint is also misconceived because simply making the averment in the complaint that Rs.8,70,000/- was given to the applicant by opposite party No.2 as loan few months back is sufficient for issuance of process and all the grounds raised by the applicant are available to him during trial.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Vandana

¶15

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

Mahmood Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahmood Hussain 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

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