Dismissed

Amit Chaudhary v. Prahlad Singh

Uttarakhand HC29 Apr 2015C482/649/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant sought to quash a summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding a cheque dishonour case. The High Court referred to Apex Court precedents establishing that stop-payment instructions do not preclude the presumption of consideration or the making out of an offence under Section 138.

What did the court decide?

Summary dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the summoning order.

Amit Chaudhary Vs Prahlad Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Criminal Misc. Application No. 649 of 2010 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

¶4

Amit Chaudhary .…….…… Applicant

¶5

versus

¶6

Prahalad Singh …………. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, present for the respondent.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶9

By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 14.12.2009 in Criminal Case No. 3517 of 2009, captioned as Prahlad Singh vs. Amit Chaudhary, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused to documents brought on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and others, [2012] 8 Supreme 274, wherein it was held:

¶12

¶13

“12. We may also at this stage refer to the decisions of this Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr.(2002) 1 SCC 234, where too this Court considering an analogous question held that even in cases where the dishonour was on account of “stop payment” instructions of the drawer, a presumption regarding the cheque being for consideration would arise under Section 139 of the Act. The Court observed:

¶14

“19. Just such a contention has been negatived by this Court in the case of Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, (1998) 3 SCC 249. It has been held that even though the cheque is dishonoured by reason of “stop-payment” instruction an offence under Section 138 could still be made out. It is held that the presumption under Section 139 is attracted in such a case also. The authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop-payment instructions by virtue of Section 139 the court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The accused can thus show that the “stop- payment” instructions were not issued because of insufficiency or paucity of funds. If the accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop-payment notice had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, then offence under Section 138 would not be made out. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused. Thus a court cannot quash a complaint on this ground.” (Emphasis Supplied)

¶15

¶16

Considering the facts of the present case and the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the desired relief cannot be granted to the applicant. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, summarily dismissed.

¶17

(U.C.Dhyani,J.) 29.04.2015

¶18

Kaushal

¶19

Amit Chaudhary v. Prahlad Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Chaudhary v. Prahlad Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Prakash Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Shailendra Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Avi Sharma and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Babar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vinod Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Nawab Khan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others