RAKESH KUSHWAHA vs STATE OF U. P. - 2012 Supreme(All) 2130

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Counsel :
Manvendra Singh and Prashand Kumar Singh for the Applicant; G.A., S.C.Verma and Deepak Gaur for the Opposite Parties.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—General Clauses Act, 1897—Section 27—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 200 and 482—Dishonour of cheque—Demand noice—Complaint—Summon—Quashing of—In present case cheque returned with memorandum that amount exceeds amount arranged to be paid—Applicant in his affidavit never denied to have accepted demand notice—Only he said that date of service of demand notice not mentioned in complaint—Denial of liability by applicant—As notice sent at address of applicant and notice not returned back after service—Notice shall be deemed to be served as per Section 27—Whether cheque in question in discharge of debt/liability is a question of fact—To be decided at trial—Impugned order sustainable.
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Object—Provision of—Enacted to punish those unscrupulous persons—Who purported to discharge their liability by issuing cheques without really intending to do so.