Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3465 (ALL)

Hari Shankar Gupta v. State of U. P.

2016-10-18

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. The present application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order dated 4.8.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot in criminal complaint case no. 1014/IX of 2016 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Karvi, district Chitrakoot. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. Heard Shri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that cheques in question were misused by the complainant and the same were presented before the Bank without informing the applicant. Information regarding dishonour of the cheques in question was received by the complainant on 3.3.2016. Reply of legal notice, issued on 2.4.2016, has also been given specifying reasons for non-payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques in question. Hence, the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts. Cheques in question were illegally presented before the Bank for encashment as the same were issued only as a guarantee/security of the work assigned to the complainant. In the circumstances, the complaint was not maintainable and the summoning order passed by the court below is also bad in law. Criminal prosecution cannot go-on against the applicant. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the summoning order has been passed by the concerned Magistrate after considering the entire facts and evidence available on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order warranting interference by this Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. In the present matter, as is evident from the record, the cheques in question were issued by the applicant and the same were presented before the Bank on 15.2.2016 within the validity period, which were dishonoured on 3.3.2016. Information was also received by the complainant on the same day i.e. 3.3.2016. Legal notice was issued on 2.4.2016, which was served upon the applicant on 4.4.2016 within the prescribed period. Reply was also made on 11.4.2016 by the applicant but the amount of the cheques in question were not paid. Complaint was filed on 24.5.2016 within the period prescribed under the Act. Legal notice was issued on 2.4.2016, which was served upon the applicant on 4.4.2016 within the prescribed period. Reply was also made on 11.4.2016 by the applicant but the amount of the cheques in question were not paid. Complaint was filed on 24.5.2016 within the period prescribed under the Act. Further, from the material available on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. The defences available to the applicant may be raised during trial before the Court concerned at appropriate stage. No ground is made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.