Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chandra Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 November, 2019
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40499 of 2019 Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 11.07.2018 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 40650 of 2017 (Malik Singh Vs. Mahesh Chandra Pal), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that a cheque dated 17.06.2017 was issued by the applicant in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. On the presentation of the said cheque for payment, the same was dishonoured and returned back.
Pursuant to the said dishonour, a notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment, however, despite being noticed, the payment was not made good by the applicant. Consequently, present complaint has been filed.
Learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of the witnesses, had summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on account of stop payment, the cheque was dishonoured and as such, offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is not made out against the applicant.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has submitted that even for the stop payment, provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is attracted and learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of the witnesses, has rightly summoned the applicant to face trial and the impugned order passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that even for the stop payment, provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act would be clearly attracted and despite being noticed, applicant has not paid the cheque amount, as such, offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is clearly made out against him. The impugned order passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity.
Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.11.2019 Nadim