Back
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Gulafsha – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the cheque dispute (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions from both parties regarding the cheque (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal principles under section 138 and presumptions of liability (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. decision to dismiss the application (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Gagan Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 11.03.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.13105 of 2021 (Sanjay Kumar Jain v. Gulafsha), under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station-Lohamandi, District-Agra, pending in the Court of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the appli
A PRESUMPTION THAT A CHEQUE PERTAINS TO A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT OR LIABILITY ARISES WHEN THE SIGNATURE ON THE CHEQUE IS ADMITTED, BUT THIS PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON....
The legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial, not pre-trial.
Dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 is actionable regardless of claims of stop payment or misplaced cheque, with legal presumptions favoring existence of debt or liability.
Dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, regardless of claims of theft, unless the evidence at trial proves otherwise.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and must be addressed during trial, with the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 48....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and must be established during trial; the High Court cannot quash proceedings based on ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
