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

2023 Supreme(All) 2411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJIV GUPTA, J.
M/S Exim Creation And Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 NO. - 26224 OF 2023.
Decided On : 21-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Mahendra Kumar Singh Chauhan.
For the Opposite Parties : G.A.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cr.P.C. - Section 482 - Quashing of summoning order - Application for quashing summoning order in complaint of dishonoured cheques - Allegations of non-service of notice versus proof of service via registered post - Disputed question of service cannot be resolved at this stage - Impugned order held just and legal. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Legal Proceedings - Execution of summoning in cheque dishonour cases - Importance of notice and proof of service in Section 138 proceedings. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
Applicants issued two cheques totalling Rs. 26 lakh, both dishonoured. Following non-payment despite notice, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the summoning order, affirming the legality of proceedings under Section 138 despite contested notice service.

Issues: Key issue was whether the service of notice was properly executed, which is essential for proceeding under Section 138.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that service of notice via registered post is sufficient, and the dispute regarding notice service is relevant for trial, not for quashing at this stage.

Result: Application under Section 482 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. quashing of summoning order in ni act case. (Para 2 , 3)
2. magistrate's inquiry leading to summoning. (Para 4)
3. dispute over service of notice. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's reasoning on notice service. (Para 7)
5. dismissal of section 482 application. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Gupta, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 9.9.2022 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 37401 of 2022 ( Mohd. Daood v. Naresh Gupta ), under section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Nagphani, District- Moradabad, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Moradabad.

3. As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicants had issued two cheques bearing Cheque No. 000052 for an amount of Rs. 6 lakh dated 1.3.2022 and Cheque No. 000053 for an amount of Rs. 20 lakh dated 27.4.2022 in favour of opposite party No. 2, however, on presentation of the said cheques, the same was dishonoured by the bank and returned back. After the dishonour of the cheques, a notice was sent to the applicants to make good the payment however, despite being noticed the due amount was not paid as such, the present complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act has been filed.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC has summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the notice has not been served upon the applicants, as such, proceedings under section 138 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn against the applicant.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the notice was sent on 5.5.2022 through registered post, which has been served upon the applicants, therefore, the proceedings under section 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against them.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that notice was sent on 5.5.2022 through registered post, which has been served upon the applicants, therefore, the proceedings under section 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against them. The disputed question of service of notice, cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come. The impugned order is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference.

8. The present application under section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

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 Back to top