Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1096 (ALL)

Ramesh v. State of U. P.

2013-04-11

AJAI LAMBA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajai Lamba, J. : This petition has been filed by Ramesh, who has been accused of committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.? The petition is directed against order dated 13.5.2011. 2. Petitioner? Ramesh, son of Sukhai, filed an application for discharge on the ground that a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had never been served on the petitioner.? Parentage of Ramesh as given in the complaint and notice, is different.? Nanhey is not the father of the petitioner.? In such circumstances, petitioner be discharged.? The said application for discharge has been dismissed vide the impugned order while noticing that it has been accepted by the petitioner that notice was given to him.? While considering the said ground and the other grounds, application has been dismissed. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in reference to the complaint and the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it becomes evident that both the documents were directed against ‘Ramesh, aged about 45 years, son of Nanhey, resident of Village Gularia Ka Purwa, Makdoompur, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow’ whereas the petitioner is ‘Ramesh, aged about 45 years, son of Sukhai, resident of Village Gularia Ka Purwa, Makdoompur, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow’. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have also heard Shri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 complainant. 6. In response to what has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above,? Shri Bireshwar Nath appearing for respondent no.2 has drawn attention towards the counter affidavit, and in particular, document Annexure No.CA-3.? Annexure No.CA-3 is the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C.? Question No.3 as put? to the petitioner was that in regard to the cheque, registered notice dated 23.2.2007 was given, however, the cheque amount was not repaid.? How would the petitioner respond to that ? 7. The petitioner responded? by saying ‘mili thi’? meaning thereby that the petitioner admitted that the notice had been received by him. 8. The other contents of the statement of the petitioner/accused recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. indicate that the petitioner accepts signing of the cheque and issuance of cheque. 9. How would the petitioner respond to that ? 7. The petitioner responded? by saying ‘mili thi’? meaning thereby that the petitioner admitted that the notice had been received by him. 8. The other contents of the statement of the petitioner/accused recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. indicate that the petitioner accepts signing of the cheque and issuance of cheque. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, it becomes evident that the petitioner had admitted in his own statement that notice had been received by him.? The petitioner wants to take advantage of a technicality viz his parentage.? This Court has taken note of the fact that all other particular of the petitioner are identical viz age and address of the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, considering the admission of the petitioner of signing the cheque, issuing the cheque and having received the notice under Negotiable Instruments Act, no ground for interference is made out.? 11. In view of the above, petition is dismissed.