Application to quash a summons issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for two dishonoured cheques covered by one complaint. The court held statutory requirements were met, signatures undisputed, and defences of prior payment were matters for trial, rejecting the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106784
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14906 of 2025
Applicant :- Harishchandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Mamta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned on 24.06.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint cannot be proceeded with in any manner whatsoever, for more than one reasons, firstly, once the cheques which were two in number stood dishonoured, which were drawn on different dates, then in these circumstances, two different complaints ought to have been filed. Secondly, the applicant herein had already made the entire payments and there was no liability stood accrued so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and even otherwise, the applicant has also lodged proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC against O.P. No.2 for lodging of the FIR.
notice had been issued and on service, when the payments were not made, complaint lodged. As a matter of fact, what would be relevant is the fact as to whether there had been any infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act and once the signatures on the cheque are not disputed and further there has been no infraction pointed out, then obviously the summoning order cannot be questioned in that regard. Nonetheless, the issue with regard to the fact that the applicant has already taken a defence that the entire payments have been made and further he had lodged proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC is concerned, and he is not liable to pay, is at best a defence, consideration thereof would arise, when the trial commences and not at this stage. Notably, the presumption of Section 139 of the N.I. Act is already there.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025 N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether two cheques dishonoured on different dates require separate complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Whether the applicant's claim that full payment was made defeats the complaint at the summoning stage rather than at trial.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Harishchandra
State of U.P.
Ashok Pandey
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
