The Patna High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance of offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act related to a dishonoured cheque.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36120 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1956 CYear-2004 Thana- PATNA Complaint Case District- Patna
===============================================
Surbala Jha W/o Ramesh Narayan Jha Proprietor of M/s Maa Kalekchewani Pharma, Mirzapur Chauk, Lal Bagh, Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
=============================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Arif, APP =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-01-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
“That this is an application on behalf of above named petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.09.2007 passed in connection with Complaint case No. 1956 © of 2004 bearing Trial No. 1775/2014, by which the learned court below has taken cognizance U/S 420 IPC and 138 N.I. Act is made out against the petitioner.”
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36120 of 2014 dt.10-01-2019 2/3
3.The opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint against
the petitioner alleging non-payment of Rs. 2,08,326/- which was issued in the name of M/s Pfizer Ltd. despite notice given by the opposite party no. 2 to the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36120 of 2014 dt.10-01-2019 3/3
misconceived as the complainant itself is the Company, though through its authorized signatory, i.e., opposite party no. 2. It was submitted that the same has rightly been done as the Company is the complainant and obviously the opposite party no. 2 being the authorized signatory, has filed the complaint on behalf of the Company, which is only a juristic person. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner having filed a case against the opposite party no. 2 and another person, has no bearing on the present case as the same would be dealt with on its own merit whereas in the present case, the issue is simply with regard to the cheque being issued by the petitioner which was not encashed and even notice to pay the amount has gone unanswered.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of cognizance in a cheat and dishonoured cheque case is maintainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Surbala Jha
The State of Bihar
Alok Kumar
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
