✦ High Court of India

Smt. Rupam Jain v. Vikky Chopra), under Section

Facts

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl.No.5) Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15567 of 2024 Applicant :- Vikky Chopra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

Legal Reasoning

insufficient." Therefore, a legal demand notice was issued on 02.06.2018, which was received by the applicant on 04.06.2018. Despite the aforesaid demand notice, the applicant herein has failed to comply with the demand notice. Thereupon on 25.06.2018, the instant complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2. From perusal of the aforesaid facts, a prima facie case is established against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 6. From perusal of the summoning order dated 06.02.2019, a categorical satisfaction has been recorded by the trial court with regard to the prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I.Act having been made out against the applicant. Therefore, this Court finds that there is sufficient application of mind, while summoning the applicant. There is sufficient compliance of the Apex Court judgment in Lalan Kumar Singh (Supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. So far as the submission of the applicant that the aforesaid cheque was not issued by him in discharge of any liability but was issued as a security cheque, even if the argument of learned counsel for the applicant is assumed to be true, by issuing the security cheque, the person authorizes the drawee of the cheque to make necessary alterations in the said security cheque in case of any default on the part of the drawer of the security cheque and Section 87 of the N.I. Act permits the holder of the cheque to make necessary alteration to carry out the common intention of the parties. In view thereof, there is no illegality in the instant complaint as well as the summoning order. 7. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

Arguments

1. Heard Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Chaudhary, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 06.02.2019 and the order issuing non-bailable warrant dated 23.09.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 965 of 2018 (Smt. Rupam Jain vs. Vikky Chopra), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I. Act'), P.S. New Agra, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque in question was issued by the applicant as a security cheque without there being any liability on the part of the applicant herein. The aforesaid cheque, given to the husband of the opposite party no.2 as a security cheque, which has been misutilized by the opposite party no.2 and the instant complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed by the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in LalanKumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC Online SC 1383 submits that while passing the impugned summoning order dated 06.02.2019, the learned trial court has not applied its mind to the facts of the case and has summoned the applicant herein mechanically, therefore, the summoning order is vitiated. In view thereof, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the complaint case. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA submits that once it is admitted by the applicant that the it was a security cheque issued by the applicant, therefore, by issuing the security cheque, the applicant herein has authorized the opposite party no.2 to make necessary alteration in the cheque in terms of Section 87 of the N.I. Act to carry out the common intention of the parties. Since the issuance of cheque is not denied by the applicant, an application under section 139 of the N.I.Act has come into play against the applicant herein. Further, in the cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Magistrate is required to record its prima facie satisfaction, whether an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out or not prior to summoning the accused persons. From perusal of the order dated 06.02.2019, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has applied its mind to the facts and the documents annexed along with the complaint. After perusal of the documents such as original cheque, dishonour memo, demand notice and registry receipt etc., the trial court has recorded its finding that the cheque was dishonoured on 22.05.2018 and thereafter the demand notice was issued on 02.06.2018. Accordingly, the instant complaint was filed on 25.06.2018 within the limitation period. Therefore, having found a prima facie case against the applicant, the trial court has summoned the applicant herein, therefore, sufficient application of mind is reflected from the order dated 06.02.2019. In view thereof, learned AGA submits that no interference is called for while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5.Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that the husband of the opposite party no.2 was running a medical shop in the name of M/s. Sudhir Medical Hall and the applicant herein was the Regional Manager of the company and was working as M.R. and used to supply the medicines in the medical store. Therefore, the applicant and the opposite party no.2 developed a good relationship, whereupon the applicant demanded the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the husband of the opposite party no.2, which was advanced by the opposite party no.2 and for repayment thereof, the cheque was issued by the applicant to the opposite party no.2. The aforesaid cheque was represented before the bank for encashment, which was dishonoured for the reason "funds

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments