Allahabad High Court
Ajay Rathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133259 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43856 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Rathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Pal Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Rajeev Kumar Pal for the opposite party no. 2.
2. This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred to quash the proceedings of Complaint No. 21512 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Vs Ajay Rathi), under section- 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Daurala, District- Meerut, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Meerut.
3. The case of the applicant is that on 29.08.2023 complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that the applicant with respect to discharge of the liability drawn two cheques bearing no. 851576 and 851577 of Rs. 27,50,000/- and 32,50,000/- dated 20.07.2023 respectively which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 21.07.2023 with the remark "insufficient fund" followed by a statutory demand notice dated 07.08.2023 and the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on 29.08.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 27.10.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that first of all in paragraph no. 7 only this much has been recited that a statutory demand notice was issued on 07.08.2023 but there is no date of service of the same and secondly, in para 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that the cheque in question was presented in the drawees bank being Punjab National Bank but the dishonor memo is of ICICI Bank.
4. Learned AGA as well as the counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that once a cheque stood drawn then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there.
5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently with respect to discharge of a liability two cheques stood drawn which were dishonored. The question as to whether the statutory demand notice was actually served and received by the applicant is a question of trial particularly when what would be suffice would be a clear recital in the complaint that the statutory demand notice was issued. The other aspects are matter of trail. In Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (12) SCC 685.
7. Insofar as the arguments so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the said cheques were presented in the bank which is claimed to be Punjab National Bank and the dishonor memo is of ICICI Bank is concerned, thus, the complaint is bound to fail is not convincible particularly when these are the subject matter of trial and, in case, the applicant disputes the fact that he has not drawn the cheque and the cheques are not being dishonored then they are to be taken as a defence in the trial particularly when presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there.
8. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere, interference is declined, application stands disposed of.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that a direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail.
10. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that, in case, applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement on bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with law of the land.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Rajesh