Case Law Details
Arvind Traders Vs State of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court considered an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order dated 06.02.2014 in a complaint case arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant contended that the complaint was based on false facts, asserting that the cheque in question had been misplaced, that stop payment instructions were issued to the bank, and that there was no liability to pay the amount mentioned. It was further alleged that the cheque had been manipulated and forged before presentation.
The State opposed the application, stating that the cheque belonged to the applicant and had been issued on 04.09.2013. It was presented twice—first on 01.10.2013 and again on 17.10.2013—and was dishonoured both times due to insufficiency of funds. A legal notice dated 13.11.2013 was served, but payment was not made, leading to filing of the complaint on 09.12.2013.
The Court held that stop payment instructions or related claims cannot be grounds for quashing proceedings at the initial stage, relying on settled Supreme Court precedents. It observed that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without examining the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. The Court found that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case and that there was no illegality in the summoning order or the revisional order affirming it. Issues such as cheque validity could be raised during trial.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application, holding that it lacked merit and that the proceedings could not be quashed at this stage.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash/set aside the summoning order dated 06.02.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 2212 of 2013 (now complaint Case No. 15 of 2015) (Atul Kumar Pandey Vs. Arvid Kumar Dubey), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Xth, Varanasi, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that present complaint was filed on the basis of false fact and the same cannot continued against the applicant. Referring to the Annexure No. 9 regarding stop payment, it was also argued that the cheque in question was mis-placed, therefore, information was given to the bank and other authority. There was no liability to pay the amount as disclosed in the cheque. It was further argued that a cheque in question was presented before the bank manipulating the amount and making the forge signature. Thus, referring to the grounds taken in the affidavit of the application, prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Learned A.G.A. argued that it is not disputed in the matter that cheque belongs to the applicant. Cheque has been issued on 04.09.2013 and was presented before the bank on 01.10.2013, it was returned back to the complainant because of insufficiency of fund in the account. Later on, on the assurance of the applicant, cheque in question was presented before the bank on 17.10.2013 again. On that date also cheque was dis-honoured due to insufficiency of fund. Legal notice on 13.11.2013 has been sent to the applicant. Complaint has been filed on 09.12.2013 when the applicant did not pay the amount of cheque in question.
I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.
So long as, the submissions regarding information given to the bank by the applicant regarding the stop payment is concerned, the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint cannot be quashed on this ground as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Cases of Electronics Trade And Technology Development Corporation, Ltd. vs Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) Pvt. Ltd. reported AIR 1996 (S.C.) page 2339, M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi AIR 1998 (S.C.) page 1057 and M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. AIR 2002 (S.C.) page 182.
In the present matter cheque is issued on 04.09.2013. First time it was presented on 01.10.2013 but was dis-honoured. Again on the assurance of applicant, the cheque in question was presented on 17.10.2013, but again it was dis-honoured. Legal notice was sent on 13.11.2013. Complaint was filed on 09.12.2013. There is specific averment that notice was received but despite request payment was not made. The submission raised on behalf of the applicant is not acceptable. It is settled legal position that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Magistrate/ Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether a prima-facie case has been made out to summon the accused person. The Court dealing with the matter is not required to analyze the material at this stage to find-out as to whether the matter will lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence as is done after recording the evidence in trial. In this matter, from the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order as well as the order passed by the revisional court affirming the said order. Plea regarding expiry of validity period of some cheques may be raised during the trial.
In view of the above, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Author Bio
