Harpal Singh v. Rajesh Jain), under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156433 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl.No.2) Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13794 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13996 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21941 of 2024 With Applicant :- Rajesh Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
N.I.Act shall be drawn against the applicant and in view thereof a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that the applicant was a good friend of Lokendra, who is the son of the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 and in view thereof, at the request of Lokendra, an amount of Rs. 21 lacs was advanced by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant. In repayment thereof, three chequs bearing nos. 006489, 634246 and 006488 were issued by the applicant amounting Rs. 6 lacs, 7 lacs and 8 lacs each, which were presented for encashment and were dishonoured for the reasons "account closed." A contigency, which is well covered within the meaning of dishonour of cheque in terms of Section 138 of the N.I. Act in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Modi Cements Ltd. V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249. Thereupon, Complaint Case No. 6078 of 2016 as well as Compalaint Case No. 6079 of 2016 and Complaint Case No. 6080 of 2016 were filed by the opposite party no.2 in the year 2016. Thereupon, summoning orders vide separate order in each complaint case dated 03.06.2017, the applicant herein was summoned for trial. In pursuance thereof, the applicant appeared before the trial court for cross examination, which is being deliberately avoided by the applicant herein and at this stage belatedly the Summoning order dated 03.06.2017 has been challenged by the applicant to further derail the trial, is a dilatory tactics adopted by the applicant herein. 6. In the Application under Section 482 No. 13794 of 2024 arising out of Case No. 6078 of 2016, the formal prayer has been made by the applicant, which reads as under: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Senior Division), Baghpat as well as application under Section 143(A) N.I.Act dated 21.03.2024 moved by O.P. No.2 in Case Nos. 6078 of 2016 (Harpal Singh vs. Rajesh Jain), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I. Act'), P.S. Badaut, District Baghpat, so that justice may be done." 7. The order dated 21.03.2024 passed in the aforesaid complaint case reads as under: "21.03.2024 पत 143(ए) भदनवमक 22.04.2024 पसतपत। कवपव समलग। 120 कक पतश हक।" ववद पपकवरव गयव। परर० उपसससत। अभभयपक कक मवमफक सववकक त। परर० दवरव पव० एफ० पतववलव। सपनव। ववद ववसतत सपन०/जजरह/अ०भन० 8. In the Application under Section 482 No. 21941 of 2024 arising out of Case No. 6079 of 2016, the formal prayer has been made by the applicant, which reads as under: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Senior Division), Baghpat as well as application under Section 143(A) N.I.Act dated 21.03.2024 moved by O.P. No.2 in Case Nos. 6079 of 2016 (Harpal Singh vs. Rajesh Jain), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I. Act'), P.S. Badaut, District Baghpat, so that justice may be done." 9. The order dated 21.03.2024 passed in the aforesaid complaint case reads as under: "21.03.2024 पत 143(ए) भदनवमक 22.04.2024 पसतपत। कवपव समलग। 120 कक पतश हक।" ववद पपकवरव गयव। परर० उपसससत। अभभयपक कक मवमफक सववकक त। परर० दवरव पव० एफ० पतववलव। सपनव। ववद ववसतत सपन०/जजरह/अ०भन० 10. In the Application under Section 482 No. 13996 of 2024 arising out of Case No. 6080 of 2016, the formal prayer has been made by the applicant, which reads as under: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Senior Division), Baghpat as well as application under Section 143(A) N.I.Act dated 21.03.2024 moved by O.P. No.2 in Case Nos. 6080 of 2016 (Harpal Singh vs. Rajesh Jain), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I. Act'), P.S. Badaut, District Baghpat, so that justice may be done." 11. The order dated 21.03.2024 passed in the aforesaid complaint case reads as under: "21.03.2024 पत 143(ए) भदनवमक 22.04.2024 पसतपत। कवपव समलग। 120 कक पतश हक।" ववद पपकवरव गयव। परर० उपसससत। अभभयपक कक मवमफक सववकक त। परर० दवरव पव० एफ० पतववलव। सपनव। ववद ववसतत सपन०/जजरह/अ०भन० 12. From the plain reading of the aforesaid orders dated 21.03.2024 passed in the instant complaint cases, it is apparent that the cases were called out, the complainant was present, however, there was an application for exemption from appearance by the accused / applicant herein, which was allowed by the court below. On the same date, an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act was filed by the complainant, which was taken on record and the date for hearing was fixed on 22.04.2024 for the said application as well as for the cross examination of the complainant witness. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the applicant can be said to be aggrieved by the said order dated 21.03.2024 and the application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act filed by the applicant, could have been decided on its own merits and it is open for the applicant to file reply to said application, therefore, prayer as made in the instant applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are misconceived prayer. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant applications as the prima facie case is made out against the applicant from the averments made in the complaint. Therefore, all the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 21.03.2024 on application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Senior Division), Baghpat separately in Case Nos. 6078 of 2016, 6079 of 2016 and 6080 of 2016 (Harpal Singh vs. Rajesh Jain), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I. Act'), P.S. Badaut, District Baghpat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits in the instant case, there was no liability towards the opposite party no.2 on the part of the applicant. The cheques in question were issued by the applicants in favour of Lokendra, who is the son of brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Since there is no liability on the part of the applicant towards the opposite party no.2, the instant complaint case on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is not maintainable against the applicant herein. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case. 4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that as per the averments made in the complaint, the amount of Rs. 21 lacs was advanced to the applicant by the opposite party no.2 in presence of the said Lokendra. In repayment thereof the cheques in question were issued by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no.2 in presence of Lokendra. Therefore, on the averments made to the complaint, categorical averments with regard to the liability of the applicant have been made out. Further, there is no denial with regard to issuance of cheque by the applicant herein. Therefore, presumption under Section 139 of the