Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46157 of 2019 Applicant :- Hari Krishan Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.751 of 2019 (Ajeet Singh Vs. Hari Krishan Sharma), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Bannadevi, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Court, Aligarh.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant has issued a Cheque No.956466 dated 17.12.2018 amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- to Opposite Party No.2. However, on presentation of the said cheque, the cheque was dishonoured. After the dishonour of the cheque, a notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment however, despite being noticed the due amount was not paid as such, the present complaint has been filed against the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
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 applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 13.08.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cheque in question was issued to Opposite Party No.2 as a security and as such, no due debt or liability exists, therefore, proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn against the applicant.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Magistrate after making requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and considering the allegations made in the complaint, had summoned the applicant to face trial vide order dated 13.08.2019. He has further submitted that even where the cheque has been issued as a security, proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against the applicant and the disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the learned Magistrate after making requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and considering the allegations made in the complaint, has summoned the applicant to face trial vide order dated 13.08.2019, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Moreover, even where the cheque has been issued as a security, proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be drawn against the applicant and the disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and do not call for any interference at this stage.
The present application under Section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Zafar