Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
BRIJ RAJ SINGH
Rudra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by S/Sri Shubham Tripathi and Inam Uddin Ahmed for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I appearing for State-opposite party no.1. However, counsel for opposite party no.2 is not present even in revised call.
2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3394 of 2019, Krishna Lal Sharma Vs. Rudra Pratap Singh , under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 26.06.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.
3. It is a case of the applicant that in respect to a business transaction between the applicant and one Mr. Mukesh Sharma with regard to a property situated in Lucknow, opposite party no.2 stood as surety for Mukesh Sharma, who entered into a settlement dated 10.03.2017 with the applicant. It is said that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid settlement, it is apparent that it was agreed with respect to Rs.90,00,000/- by means of the settlement dated 10.03.2017, wherein opposite party no.2 admitted his liability and agreed to provide nine undated chequ
The court quashed criminal proceedings under the IPC due to mala fide intent behind filing the complaint, after a valid earlier complaint was filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable if filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period, which affects the cause of action.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute criminal liability under IPC unless fraudulent intent is established at the time of inducement.
Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Point of Law : Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specificall....
(1) Dishonour of cheques – Under Section 138 of NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a cheque provided statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure t....
A power of attorney holder can file a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act provided they assert personal knowledge; however, enforcing a compromise via criminal proceedings is not permitted.
The court reiterated that issues around cheque liability under Section 138 NI Act must be decided at trial, underscoring the necessity for allegations in complaints to be accepted as true at the quas....
The denial of liability and refusal to pay the cheque amounts by the accused constituted a valid cause of action for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, despite being filed before t....
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
