Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1395 (ALL)

Ram Bhuwan Shukla v. State of U. P.

2015-05-26

VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. -- By means of this petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including summoning order dated 16.05.2009 arising out of Complaint Case No.4268 of 2009 (Jawahar Lal Vs. Ram Bhuwan), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'NI Act'), Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the records. 3. The sole ground taken by the petitioner for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is that the complaint is premature. In this context, he pointed out that notice of demand has been given to the petitioner by registered post on 06.09.2008 giving seven days time for making the payment and thereafter, the complaint was filed on 12.09.2008. 4. On the contrary, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the complaint was not premature in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Das Partani and another; 2001 (42) ACC 159 (SC)= (2000) 7 SCC 183 wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that: "Mere presentation of the complaint in the court cannot be held to mean, that its cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate. If the complaint is found to be pre-mature, it can await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later and its mere presentation at an earlier date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia's case (Supra) leaves no room to doubt that it is the date of taking cognizance in the matter and not the presentation of complaint. Admittedly, in this case, the cognizance has been taken not on the date of presentation of the complaint as is evident from the impugned order itself. 6. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.