Dismissed

Vaidyanathan Ramchandran and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 May 2023Cr.M.P./1213/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of cognizance and arrest warrant orders. The Court held that the trial court applied its judicial mind while taking cognizance under Section 138 of the NI Act and that plea of defence cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the orders of cognizance and arrest warrant was dismissed.

Vaidyanathan Ramchandran and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1213 of 2014

¶3

Vaidynathan Ramchandran 2. Swaminathan Vaidyanathan ..... … Petitioners Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand. 2. P. Mohan ..... … Opposite Parties --------

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay. Advocate. For the State : Ms Sushma Aind, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate.

¶7

¶8

08/ 15.05.2023 Heard Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms Sushma Aind, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Kanishka Deo, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶9

This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 13.08.2013 and 21.04.2014, by which, cognizance and warrant of arrest respectively have been ordered to be issued against the petitioners, in connection with C/1 Case No. 2024 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

¶10

The complaint case was lodged alleging therein that the petitioners are engaged in the business of Petrol Pump in the name and style of M/s Neelvathi Fuels in which he had given Rs. 10 Lac with the condition that share of profit of Rs. 1 Lac should be given to him. He further stated that share of profit was not paid. It has been stated that the accused /petitioners gave five cheques, amounting to Rs. 2 Lac each in favour of the complainant, the dates of the two cheques dt. 6.2.2013, and other three cheques are dated 8.2.2013 but the same were dishonoured on the ground as the cheques have been lost and thereafter notice was sent for payment but the same amount not paid, thereafter the complaint was filed.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complaint case was lodged due to dishonour of cheque, however, the complaint was lodged belatedly. He further submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance, which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the cognizance order is non-speaking order.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 have opposed the prayer.

¶13

In view of the above, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition, from which, it appears that admittedly the

¶14

-2-

¶15

cheque in question has been dishonoured. In the order taking cognizance, wherein cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act has been taken, the learned court has stated that he has looked into the contents of the complaint and after finding the prima facie case against the petitioners, has taken the cognizance, thus the learned court has applied his judicial mind and thereafter only has taken the cognizance.

¶16

What has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is only the defence and that can only be decided in the trial. 8. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.

¶17

Amitesh/-

Vaidyanathan Ramchandran and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaidyanathan Ramchandran and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Abdul Mannan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manjot Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indralok Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Choudhary and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Bhola Chouhan Alias Bhola Nonia and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand