Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6628 of 2007 Applicant :- M/S Ambey Motros Through Its Propreitor/Ownere Arjun Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- C.L. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pankaj Govil, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 4.11.2006 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2278 of 2005, (Shyam Sunder Vs. M/s. Ambey Motors its Proprietor/owner Arjun Singh pending in the court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Aligarh.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued a cheque bearing no. 254789 dated 8.7.2005 in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 for an amount of Rs.80,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque before the Bank, it was dishonoured and returned back.
After dishonour of the cheque, a legal notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment of the cheque amount, however, despite being noticed, the applicant has not made good the payment of the cheque amount, as such, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against the applicant.
On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the complaint and making requisite enquiry under Sections 200 Cr.P.C and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 4.11.2006.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cheque in question was not issued by him and was infact lost and therefore no due debt or liability exists, as such, proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can not be drawn against him.
Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 learned AGA has supported the impugned summoning order and has submitted that learned Magistrate, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant.
Learned AGA has further submitted that disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come, as such, impugned summoning order is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the application is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that learned Magistrate, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC, has summoned the applicant to face trial. Moreover, disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come. The impugned summoning order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and do not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.PC is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 R