Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1021 (ALL)

Renu v. State of U. P.

2016-03-18

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.9.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 308 of 2014 (Smt. Renu Vs. Smt. Pramod Rajpur and another) as well as summoning order dated 3.5.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 346 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that legal notice sent in the matter by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant is illegal. Amount said to have been due is shown as Rs. 5,70,000/-. Complainant has not made clear the demand made in the notice. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Rahul Builders Vs. M/s Arihant Fertilizers and another, appeal (Crl.) 525 of 2005 decided by the Apex Court on 2.11.2007 and argued that criminal proceedings of the aforesaid complaint is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State argued that complainant has clearly disclosed the amount of the cheque in the demand notice as is clear from para no. 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint. Demand was made only for the cheque amount. Thus, submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record and also the law laid down in M/s Rahul Builders (supra) case carefully. 6. If the ratio laid down in M/s Rahul Builders (supra) case is taken into consideration in context with the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that opposite party no. 2 has clearly described the amount of the cheque in question in the demand notice. Actual amount said to be due against the applicant and the amount of the cheques in question are separable. Demand notice was also sent making demand of the amount of the cheques in question. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. Actual amount said to be due against the applicant and the amount of the cheques in question are separable. Demand notice was also sent making demand of the amount of the cheques in question. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. So far as the issuance of account payee cheque is concerned rules, regulations applicable at this time if not followed by the applicant, then this fact cannot be raised by him as defence. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this respect is also not acceptable. 7. Thus, this application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.