Mohd. Yunus Malik vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Q: Key Points

No, this case has not been overruled. (!) [25001129100014][25001129100015][25001129100016] The provided legal document is the full text of the judgment dated 17-07-2023 in Application U/s 482 No. 41434 of 2022 (Mohd. Yunus Malik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another), delivered by the High Court of Allahabad. It records the dismissal of the application to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, with directions to the bank, and contains no indication of any subsequent overruling by a higher court or otherwise. The judgment stands as the final disposition in the document.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1153

NEERAJ TIWARI
Mohd. Yunus Malik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Anwar Hussain.
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Pawan Kumar Shukla.

Judgement Key Points

No, this case has not been overruled. (!) [25001129100014][25001129100015][25001129100016]

The provided legal document is the full text of the judgment dated 17-07-2023 in Application U/s 482 No. 41434 of 2022 (Mohd. Yunus Malik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another), delivered by the High Court of Allahabad. It records the dismissal of the application to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, with directions to the bank, and contains no indication of any subsequent overruling by a higher court or otherwise. The judgment stands as the final disposition in the document.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anwari Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the ICICI-Bank.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 36644 of 2022 (Anuj Kumar Gupta vs. Mohd. Yunus Malik) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1881) as well as summoning order dated 20.6.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complaint case was filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 142 of Act, 1881 on the ground of bouncing of cheque. He next submitted that alongwith complaint, letter of Bank dated 20.4.2022 has also been annexed having no seal or signature. He firmly submitted that in absence of seal or signature, letter cannot be treated as valid document. He further submitted that relying upon such letter, cognizance order has been passed, which is bad and liable to quashed.

4. Per contra, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed and submitted that he has rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(All) 1153

NEERAJ TIWARIMohd. Yunus Malik – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

NEERAJ TIWARI
Mohd. Yunus Malik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent