The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1973 of 2018 & batch cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1973 of 2018 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal With … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 1974 of 2018 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal With … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 1991 of 2018 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal With … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 1993 of 2018 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal With … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 1994 of 2018 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal With … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 1996 of 2018 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2046 of 2018 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1973 of 2018 & batch cases 1. M/s Jainsons Mineral Development (P) Ltd. through Director Sudesh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish, New Delhi 2. Sudeish Kumar Jain @ Suresh Kumar Jain @ Sudeish … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal ----- … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate (In all cases) For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1973/18) Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1974/18 & 1996/18) Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1991/18) Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-2046/18) : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate (In all cases) For O.P. No.2 10/01.02.2024 In all these petitions, common question of facts and laws are involved and in view of that, with consent of the parties all these petitions have been ----- heard together. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 3. Cr.M.P. No.1973 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 1883 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, Cr.M.P. No.1974 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 3204 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, Cr.M.P. No.1991 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 2948 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1973 of 2018 & batch cases has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad, Cr.M.P. No.1993 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 29.05.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 2392 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, Cr.M.P. No.1994 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 2254 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad, Cr.M.P. No.1996 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 2712 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad and Cr.M.P. No.2046 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. CP 2250 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. Mr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all these cases have been filed by opposite party no.2 for dishonouring of ten different cheques, which were given as security. He further submits that in view of that, ten different cases were filed. He submits that the vehicle in question was hypothecated with the bank and in spite of that, the same was sold to the petitioners and in view of that, the petitioners requested the bank to stop the payment. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1973 of 2018 & batch cases 5. The said argument is being resisted by Mr. Modi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and he submits that the cheques were issued, however, the account was blocked earlier. He further submits that once the cheque is issued, presumption is already there. 6.
Decision
In view of the above, it appears that the disputed question of fact is involved in the present cases and issuance of cheques are not denied. 7. Once cheque is issued, presumption is always there in light of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. What has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that are defence of the petitioners, which can be appreciated by the learned Trial Court. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. 9. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)