Dismissed¶¶13

Santosh Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2025NA528/4230/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash summoning order under Section 138 NI Act dismissed; factual defence of cheating and lack of legally enforceable debt held to be matter for trial; presumption under Section 139 NI Act applies; prior Section 156(3) CrPC complaint does not bar NI Act proceedings at pre-trial stage.

What did the court decide?

The defence that the applicant was cheated and the vehicle was sold by a person impersonating the owner is a matter of trial and cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the summoning order under Section 528 BNSS. ¶¶12

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70061

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4230 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Devottam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 03.04.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia in Complaint Case No.1832 of 2024 (Pramod Kumar Vs. Santosh Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Nagra, District-Ballia, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 27.02.2024 with an allegation that a cheque bearing no. 000104 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was drawn by the applicant on 14.11.2023, which on presentation in the bank on 15.01.2024 stood dishonored on 17.01.2024 and the statutory demand notice was issued on 20.01.2024 which is stated to have been served upon the applicant on 23.01.2024 and thereafter, the complaint stood lodged on 27.02.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability against the applicant which can be used as a tool for inflicting criminality particularly when a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P. was lodged by the applicant on 19.02.2024 against one Pramod Kumar Rajbhar son of Prem Chandra Rajbhar with an allegation that the applicant had purchased a truck bearing No. UP 60 T-6485 believing it to be owned by Pramod Kumar son of Prem Chandra Rajbhar and a cheque for an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- stood drawn, however, on enquiry it transpired from the office of the RTO, Ballia that the said vehicle was owned by Pramod Singh son of Uday Bhan Singh and, thus, the applicant was cheated and the vehicle stood transferred by a person who was not the legal owner and when the

¶10

said fact came to the knowledge of the applicant then the applicant was compelled to take action which culminated into dishonoring of the cheque. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint has been lodged by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prior to the lodging of the complaint by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of NI Act. He seeks to further submit that application under Section 138 would only relate to those contingencies wherein there is legally enforceable debt and in the present case, there happens to be an attempt to cheat the applicant. Thus, no criminality can be inflicted upon the applicant. Thus, he submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be the argument so sought to be advanced by the applicant, they are the matter of trial as presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would always be in favour of the holder.

¶12

Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is stated to have been dishonored. Thereafter, a statutory demand notice has been issued which is stated to have been served upon the applicant and the complaint has been lodged. The theory so sought to be propounded by the learned counsel for the applicant with relation to the fact that he was cheated and the vehicle in question was sold to him by an owner who was not the actual owner but while impersonating or otherwise is a matter of trial which cannot be gone into. As per the complaint, the cheque is dated 14.11.2023 and the same stood dishonored on presentation in the bank on 15.01.2024 and stood dishonored on 17.01.2024, statutory notice also came to be issued on 20.01.2024 which is stated to have been served upon the applicant on 23.01.2024, however, the complaint under Section 156(3) has been lodged on 19.02.2024. Moreover, this Court is not required to delve into the factual matters and whatever arguments which the applicant claims to be in his favour are always open to be taken in trial as the same may be a factor in determining as to whether the case is of conviction or acquittal.

¶13

Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application is consigned to record .

¶14

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Rajesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Singh 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