Dismissed

Mohd Dilshad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2025NA528/6485/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act favours the holder and the claim that the cheque was lost is a matter for trial. The court also noted the applicant's failure to comply with a previous direction to deposit Rs. 80,000/-.

What did the court decide?

null

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74296

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6485 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Dilshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 23.07.2019 and entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 402 of 2019 "Vijay Kumar Vs. Dilshad" U/S 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, passed by in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D./J.M.) Deoband, Saharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 with respect to dishonouring of a cheque of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- bearing number "799947" dated 03.05.2019, statutory demand notice is stated to have been issued on 16.08.2019 and the complaint has been filed and thereafter the applicants have been summoned on 23.07.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not drawn the cheque and further the leaflet of the aforesaid cheques and the said cheque was misplaced and a complaint whereof was made on 07.02.2012 before the police.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that earlier also the applicant had approached this Court while filing Application u/s 482 No. 39409 of 2024 in which on a statement so made by learned counsel for the applicant that the recovery proceedings have been initiated to deposit Rs. 80,000/- within a period of two weeks.

¶10

I have heard the submissions so raised across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

¶11

Apparently, the applicant had earlier preferred Application under Section 482 No.39409 of 2024, Mohd. Dilshad vs. State of U.P , in which on 27.11.2024, the following orders were passed: -

¶12

" 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.402 of 2019 (Vijay Kumar Vs. Dilshad), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.

¶14

3. Contention of learned counsel for applicant is that applicant wants to pay the amount of compensation in compliance of order dated 30.10.2023, but because of issuance of recovery warrant as well as other coercive measure, he could not deposit the same. He has further submitted that if some time is granted to the applicant, he will deposit the same before the court below.

¶15

4. Considering the aforesaid request of learned counsel for applicant, present application is disposed of with direction that applicant will deposit Rs.80,000/- in compliance of order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.402 of 2019, within a period of two weeks.

¶16

5. For a period of two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in respect of the aforesaid case. "

¶17

On a specific query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the applicant has deposited the said amount, the answer is in negative. Apart from this, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder and further the issue as to whether the cheque stood lost is a matter of trial, which cannot be gone into at this stage.

¶18

Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere in the present proceeding.

¶19

The application is rejected .

¶20

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 N.S.Rathour

¶21

(Vikas Budhwar, J)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Dilshad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Dilshad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases