Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33872 of 2025 Ravindra Kumar Mishra State Of U.P. And Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohit Verma, Sachida Nand Tripathi : G.A. With APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33056 of 2025 Ravindra Kumar Mishra And Another State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohit Verma, Sachida Nand Tripathi : G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Mohit Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The facts of the leading application are that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 08.12.2021 under Section 138 of the NI Act against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant with respect to discharge of his liability had earlier drawn cheque no. 465388, 465385, 465387, 465386 of Rs. 15,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored thereafter, another set of cheques were issued bearing no. 000023 of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- dated 09.07.2021 and the cheque no. 000002 of Rs. 30,00,000/- dated 18.07.2021 which on presentation on bank on 17.10.2021 came to be dishonored on 18.10.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 2 NA528 No. 33872 of 2025 12.11.2021 and the complaint on 08.12.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act on 15.07.2022. 3. As regards the connected application is concerned, complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 31.05.2022 under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that the applicant herein had drawn cheuqe bearing no. 409070 of Rs. 4,00,000/- dated 25.01.2022 and cheque no. 409071 of Rs. 20,00,000/- dated 25.01.2022 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 15.04.2022 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 25.04.2022 and a complaint under Section 138 NI Act on 31.05.2022 and the applicant came to be summoned on 15.07.2022 under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no legal debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act particularly when the work order so alleged to have been issued by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2 dated 09.11.2020 is a forged and fictitious document which has been intentionally prepared just in order to dupe and to falsely implicate the applicant particularly when there was no occasion to have issued a work order dated 09.11.2020 and further submission that even otherwise the tripartite agreement was executed on 13.05.2021. Submission is that the court below while summoning the applicant has not considered the said vital aspect of the matter particularly when the the basis itself is lacking so as to implicate that the applicant is liable to pay some money. Argument is that the entire basis so made in the complaint has no substratum and the story so sought to be cooked up as alleged in the complaint itself stands eroded. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonored, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there. 6. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record. 7. Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of cheques in the leading and the connected applications followed by a statutory demand notice, the complaint stood lodged and the applicant has been summoned. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there is any procedural infraction with regard to the provisions contained under Section 3 NA528 No. 33872 of 2025 138 and Section 142 of the NI Act, the answer is in negative. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the work order dated 09.11.2020 is a forged and fictitious document and fraud has been played as at no point of time any work order was issued on 09.11.2020 and taking the case of the opposite party no. 2 to be at its face value, a tripartite agreement stood executed on 13.05.2021, thus, there is no legal debt or liability so as invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act is concerned. In the opinion of the Court, at the stage of summoning, it is not required that the court below is to adjudge upon the veracity and the genuineness of a document as in case the same is a forged and fictitious document then it is to be proved in accordance with law after leading evidence that too while contesting the trial or while availing other remedies as available under law. Apparently, what is to be seen at the stage of summoning is the issue whether there has been compliance of the provisions of Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act. With respect to the submissions so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the work order itself is forged and fictitious, thus, there is no legal debt or liability is concerned, the same obviously in the facts and the circumstances of the case is a mixed question of facts and law which cannot be decided by this Court in the present proceedings wherein summoning order is subject matter of challenge. Nonetheless, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is always there. 8. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that multiple complaints have been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 as well as their kith and kin is concerned, this Court, at this stage, is not required to delve into the same as at best they can be a defence if raised at the time when the trial commences.
Decision
9. Accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual submissions which are advisable and permissible under law. September 9, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad