Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2480 (ALL)

Devendra Sharma v. State of U. P.

2014-08-13

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.755 of 2013, under section 138 N. I. Act, P.S. Sadar, District Agra as well as order dated 25.3.2014 passed by Special CJM, Agra and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that truck was purchased by the applicant from complainnat, opposite party no.2. The cheque for a sum of Rs.2 lac was issued with the assurance that if amount is deposited in the account of complainant and that cheque would be returned. Subsequently, applicant deposited in the account of complainant in Canara Bank on 30.9.2013, however, that cheque was not returned rather complaint dated 29.11.2013 was filed under section 138 N. I. Act. Even notice was not served. The complaint was lodged on the basis of false allegation hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 5. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If averment of the applicant is correct that amount has already been deposited in the account then the discharge of the liability regarding which a cheque for a sum of Rs.2 lac was issued since he has discharged his liability by deposit of the amount, hence impugned complaint under section 138 N. I. Act is not maintainable. As far as the service of notice is concerned, there was registered notice hence presumption would be regarding service. However, this disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties after verifying this fact whether amount was deposited by the applicant in the Canara Bank on 3.9.2013 in the account of complainant in discharge of his duty or not. 7. 7. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 8. However, if application is moved for settlement/compounding, the court concerned will consider that applicant in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H 2010 (5)SCC 663 . With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.