Disposed

Pappu Singh Son of Ramniwas Gehlot, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2026CRLMP/2662/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of Section 138 NI Act proceedings and cognizance orders, claiming petitioner's mental disability and misuse of six missing cheques by the complainant. The court held such disputed factual questions cannot be resolved under inherent jurisdiction and disposed of the petition, leaving defences to trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pappu Singh Son of Ramniwas Gehlot, Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:25758]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2662/2022 URN: CRLMP / 3924U / 2022

¶4

Pappu Singh Son of Ramniwas Gehlot, Resident of Babaji Ki Chhavni Dausa, District Dausa (Raj).

¶5

Smt. Sharda Wife of Pappu Singh Gehlot, Resident of Babaji Ki Chhavni Dausa, District Dausa (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶9

Ramavtar Vadhavan Son of Deshraj Vadhavan, Resident of Ghas Mandi, Kumhar Mohalla, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parmeshwar Pilania for Mr. R.S. Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar-PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta-Asstt.G.A.

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

09/07/2026

¶15

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. A challenge has also been led to the subsequent order dated 04.01.2022 by which the substance of accusation for the above stated offence has been recorded against the petitioners.

¶16

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioners before the Court of Sessions Judge,

[2026:RJ-JP:25758]

[CRLMP-2662/2022]

(2 of 3)

Dausa, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022.

¶21

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire proceedings of the criminal case No. 2432/2019.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1-Pappu Singh, is a physically challenged person who is suffering from 40% mental disability and even a certificate in this regard has also been issued by the Medical Board of Government Hospital. Counsel further submits that under these circumstances, he could not have issued any cheque in favour of the complainant. Counsel further submits that six blank cheques of the petitioner No.1 were missing for which a complaint was filed by him before the concerned Police Station and even this fact was also intimated to the Bank, but no heed was paid and in the meantime, the aforesaid cheques have been misused by the complainant and one of those cheques has been dishonored by the bank and a false and malicious complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed. Counsel submits that the petitioner No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner No. 1 and she has not issued any such cheques in question and she has been implicated as an accused simply because she is a joint account holder of the bank account. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners be quashed.

¶23

None present on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

[2026:RJ-JP:25758]

[CRLMP-2662/2022]

(3 of 3)

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶28

This fact is not in dispute that the cheques in question bears the signatures of the petitioner No. 1. The fact whether the petitioner No. 1 has issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant or not and whether the said cheques were missing and the same has been misused by the complainant or not, is the defence of the accused, which requires evidence to get proved. The disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶29

This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition, grating liberty to the petitioner to take all available defence which have been taken before this Court at the appropriate stage of the trial by way of filing an appropriate evidence before the Trial Court.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Ashu/5

Pappu Singh Son of Ramniwas Gehlot, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pappu Singh Son of Ramniwas Gehlot, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Son of Mohan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S S.N.M. Enterprises Vs District Collector, Jaipur

Ramji Lal S/O Late Shri Jagdish Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijit Singh S/O Prithvi Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Singh Son of Hanumant Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Wasim @ Wasim Akram Son of Aasudeen Vs State of Rajasthan