Allahabad High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152405 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl.No.11) Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22802 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Dwivedi,Rahul Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Padmakar Rai, 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 03.06.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 6864 of 2018 (New Complaint Case No.135/2019) (Rajesh Gupta vs. M/s. Shiv Shakti Infravision Private Limited and another) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'N.I.Act'), pending before the Court of Additional Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in the instant case, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed on 15.11.2018 for dishonour of the cheque allegedly issued by the applicant herein. Learned counsel for the applicant also contends that initially the legal notice as well as the summons were issued on the wrong address, which is admitted by the opposite party no.2 and the same is reflected in the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the trial court, wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant has changed his address, therefore, summons could not be served. Thereafter the fresh address was furnished by the opposite party no.2 on 16.06.2023. Thereupon the summons were served on the fresh address. Thereafter on 16.10.2023, the applicant has appeared before the Court. Thereafter the instant application has been filed. However, the summoning order dated 03.06.2019 passed in a pre-printed proforma without application of mind. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the said order. 4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that merely because the summoning order has been passed in a pre-printed proforma order would not vitiate the same till the application of mind is reflected from the said order and such pre-printed proforma orders are being passed in absence of stenographers in the courts below. If the application of mind is reflected, the same cannot be permitted to be challenged that too after five years of the summoning order having been passed against the applicant. 5. The only grievance of the applicant is that the summoning order has been passed on a pre-printed proforma orders by filling in the blanks. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of the summoning order dated 03.06.2019, which reads as under: " पररववदद नन यह पररववद धवरव 138 परकवमय ववलनख अधधवनयम कन अनतररत पसततत वकयव हह। पररववद कन ससवकप कथन यह हह वक ववपकदरण नन अपनन दववयतव कक पपवतर कन धलए पशनरत चहक पररववदद कन हक मम पररववदद कक वदयव थव, धजसन भतरतवन हनतत बबक मम जमव वकयव रयव। लनवकन वह अनवदत हक रयव। ततपशचवत पररववदद नन ववपकदरण कक कवनपनद नकवटस दनकर चहक कक धनरववश अदव लनवकन ववपकदरण नकवटस वमलनन कन 15 करनन कक मवसर कक, वदन कक वनधवरररत अवधध मम चहक धनरववश कव भतरतवन करनन मम असफल रहन। इसधलए यह पररववद दवधखल वकयव रयव हह। पररववदद नन धवरव 200 दस०प०सस० कन अनतररत अपनव सवकय शपथपत वदनवसवकत 05.02.2019 दवधखल वकयव हह। धजसमन पररववद कन कथनन कव समथरन वकयव रयव हह। पररववदद नन धवरव 202 दस०प०सस० कन अनतररत सवकय सपचद दवधखल वदनवसक 20.12.2018 सन दवधखल दसतववनजद सवकय कक पढनन कक पवथरनव कक हह। नयवयवलय दवरव तलबद कन पशन पर पररववदद कन पररववद पत व पररववदद कन सवकय शपथपत, नकवटस आवद कव अवलककन वकयव रयव। पतववलद पर उक समसत सवककयक सवमगद कन आधवर पर ववपकदरण कन 138 परकवमय धलखत अधधवनयम कव मवमलव रवठत हकनव पतदत हकतव हह। ववदवन अधधवकव कक बहस कक सतनव रयव एवस पशनरत चहक व चहक अनवदत हकनन कन जवपन, ववधधक ववरद पथम दषयव धवरव आदनश कन अपरवध मम ववचवरण हनतत तलब वकयव जवतव हह। अवभयतकरण कन अवभयतकरण (1) M/s Shiv Shakti Infravision Pvt. Ltd. (2) Sunil Kumar Singh कक धवरव-138 N.I. Act ववरद धवरव-138 पररववदद उपरकक कन समबनध मम सपचद रववहवन व पवसनस फकस अनदर 07 ततपशचवत अवभयतक कक सममन दवरव वदनवसक 26.07.2019 सपदड पकसट सन भनजन जवयम।" वदन दवधखल करन। धलए आहहत वकयव जवयन। सममन परकवमय धलखत अधधवनयम कन मवमलन कव ससजवन धलयव जवतव हह। कन 6. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act on 20.12.2018 by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that there was an agreement between the applicant and the opposite party no.2. In pursuance of the same, 35 different cheques were issued by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no.2, out of which the cheque no. 014015 amountnig to Rs. 20,19,770/- dated 01.10.2018 was issued in favour of the opposite party no.2, which was deposited by the opposite party no.2 in his account for encashment. The same was dishonoured on 02.11.2018 for the reasons "payment stopped by the drawer." Thereupon a legal demand notice was issued on 15.11.2018 and since the same was not complied with, the instant complaint case was filed on 20.12.2018. It is settled position of law that the dishonour of cheque with remark the payment stopped by the drawer, is well covered within the meaning of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and all formalities required under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were complied with the instant case. After perusal of the entire record of the case, the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order dated 03.06.2019 taking note of the averments made in the complaint and the affidavit filed along with the complaint as well as taking note of the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. along with the dishonour memo and legal notice. 7. Since the summoning order reflects clear and categorical application of mind, this Court does not wish to interfere with the same and therefore, the instant application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)