SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1550

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Jitendra S. Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Randhir Kumar
For the Respondent: Abhay Kumar Tiwari

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The order taking cognizance under Section 138 NI Act must include essential details regarding the cheque return memo and the disputed amount. (!) (!) - The court held that the cognizance order dated 06.06.2012 lacked necessary details (date of return memo and amount) and set it aside, remitting the matter for a fresh order. (!) (!) - The case involves a dishonored cheque of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and alleged non-refund totaling Rs. 3,77,75,000/-, with conflicting statements about whether the amount was returned. (!) - The matter is remitted back to the court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (!) - The proceedings pertain to CP Case No. 876 of 2012 in Dhanbad, with cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. (!) - Notices and service issues are discussed, including multiple orders for service and subsequent steps like substituted service by publication. (!) - The petition seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance due to disputed facts regarding payment. (!) (!) - Cross-examination testimony presents that the amount regarding the cheque has not been received, indicating disputed facts about payment. (!) - The petitioner argues that the amount was returned, which is claimed to be admitted in evidence, while the respondent contends the opposite. (!) (!)

How to ensure the order taking cognizance under Section 138 NI Act includes details of the cheque return memo and the disputed amount?

What is the consequence when the order taking cognizance lacks essential details such as the date of return memo and the amount?

What are the required actions when cognizance is found to be taken without disclosing essential information, such as return memo details and amount?


JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. By order dated 13.06.2017 notices were directed to be issued upon the O.P. No. 2. Fresh notice was issued on 13.05.2022. It has been referred in the order dated 03.07.2023 that notice on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 has been received by the staff and in view of that, on that day, fresh notices were directed to be issued upon the O.P. No. 2 and liberty was provided to the petitioner to serve personally and file supplementary affidavit. By order dated 16.08.2023 the O.P. No. 2 was directed to serve through learned lawyer who was appearing before the learned court on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and by order dated 12.09.2023 the petitioner was directed to take substituted steps of notice by way of paper publication and pursuant to that, the petitioner has filed the affidavit annexing the paper publication. In spite of that, the O.P. No. 2 has not appeared. In view of that, this matter is being heard in absence of the O.P. No. 2.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra S.Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the ent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top