Dismissed

Upendra Kumar Chaubey v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench of the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to comply with the Court's direction to file an affidavit proving the RTGS transfer of the cheque amount, leading the Judge to hold that no warrant for interference existed as this defense pertained to the trial.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed.

Upendra Kumar Chaubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No. 331 of 2016

¶3

Upendra Kumar Chaubey ….…… Petitioner Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

2.Chandra Bhushan Mishra

¶6

…… Opposite Parties

¶7

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

---------

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate

¶10

11/Dated: 23/08/2023

¶11

Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Alka Kumari, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶12

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.06.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. C 1916 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 3. The complaint has been filed alleging therein the accused took iron rod and cement on credit from the shop of complainant M/S Magadh Enterprises and he assured that he will provide him cheque of Vananchal Gramin Bank of Rs. 1,50,000/and also requested him to deposit the cheque after 25.5.2012 for its encashment. The complainant agreed as per the proposal of accused. The complainant has further stated that he supplied the material to him on credit and the accused gave him cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- The complainant thereafter deposited the cheque in his account but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund .The complainant thereafter requested him to pay the amount and due to none payment of the amount on 13.7.2012 he sent legal notice through registered post requesting therein to make the payment within 15 days but the amount was not paid. The complainant has stated that the accused had cheated him after taking the materials on credit he did not make the payment.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said amount of the cheque has already been paid by the petitioner by way of RTGS in favour of O.P. No.2 inspite

¶14

¶15

of that learned court has taken cognizance.

¶16

By order dated 18.05.2023 on the said submission the Court called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to file affidavit to suggest that said amount has been transferred by way of RTGS in the account of the O.P. No.2. The said order was not complied with. On 21.06.2023 again time was taken on the same ground for complying the said order. Time has been again provided on 10.07.2023 to comply the said order however, till date no supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

It appears that the document on which the petitioner is relying of RTGS transfer that is Annexure-6 which suggests that an application was filed for transfer to the bank however whether the said amount was transferred in the account of complainant or not is not clear and that is why by order dated 18.05.2023 the petitioner was called upon to file supplementary affidavit and further opportunity was provided inspite of that supplementary affidavit has not been filed. The petitioner has not been able to prove that the said amount was transferred by way of RTGS. Moreover, the grounds taken herein are defence of the petitioner which can well be agitated in the trial.

¶18

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶20

Satyarthi/

Upendra Kumar Chaubey v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Chaubey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nripendra Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through CBI

Pralay Pal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Barki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand