Pradeep Kumar Asthana v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14155 of 2017 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Asthana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiva Kant Srivastava Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶1Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Prashant Saxena, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶2The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been files seeking quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 25.09.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. Pradeep Kumar Asthana), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the plain reading of the complaint filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act') by the opposite party no.2, it is apparent that the cheque for Rs. 2 lacs was issued on 20.01.2012 and the said cheque was presented on

19.11.2012 after the expiry of its validity period. Therefore, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act can be attracted towards the cheque of Rs. 2 lacs dated 20.01.2012. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that so far as the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs is concerned though, the same was presented within the validity period and was dishonoured. However, from the reading of the entire complaint, it is apparent that there is no averments with regard to issuance of any demand notice by the opposite party no.2 demanding the cheque amount from the applicant herein. Therefore, for want of such notice and expiry of the notice period, the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act will not be constituted in terms of Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶4From the plain reading of the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act as filed by the opposite party no.2, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out against the applicant herein as the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act itself has not been constituted. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for quashing of summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the said complaint case against the applicant herein.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that though there is no mention of issuance of any legal notice however, in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no. 2 has stated with regard to issuance of notice and when no reply was received, the instant complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 138 N.I.Act is not made out. Learned counsel for the State also submits that from the plain reading of the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act as filed by the opposite party no.2, the ingredients of Section 138 N.I.Act are not fulfilled, therefore, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is constituted as neither there is any reference to any demand notice or failure of the applicant to comply with the demand notice is made in the instant complaint case. Therefore, learned counsel for the State also submits that the instant application deserves to be allowed as no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is constituted.

¶6Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act as filed by the opposite party no.2 is reproduced as under: "

ववदपतअनतररतधवरव138

ननरग०नशएबबलइनसटटममणटऐकटनमनजवननब

पररववददननमनलललखतहह-

1.

यहनकपररववददननववसदमबहलव-शवहमबहममदपबर, थवनव-

मबवरकपबरलजलव-

आजमरढ।पमशववयवसवयहह।

2.

यहनकपररववददवअनभयबककमबदचबहहतघननषससबसधदगसतवनवलरवव थव।

3.

यहनकअनभयबकनमअपनमआवशयकजररदयवतककपटनतरकमललएहम

पररववददसममबव०500000/-

पवपचलवखरपयवउधवरमवसरवऔरअनभयगरदनम

अनभयबकपरनवशववसकरकमएकसवलकमअनदरवनकशततयथवनदनवसक

15.4.09

कगमबव०70,000/- र०,

नदनवसक13.6.09

कगमबव०50,000/-र०-

नदनवसक30.7.09

मबव०40,000/- र०,

वनदनवसक20.09.09 कग 60,000/- र०,

नदनवसक28.10.09

कगमबव०80,000/- र०, नदनवसक

27.11.09

कग1,00,000/- र०-,

नदनवसक29.12.09

कगमबव०40,000/- र०,

नदनवसक27.1.10

कगमबव०30,000/-र०,

वनदनवसक20.2.10 कग 30,000/-

मबव०5,00,000/-

रपयवअनभयबककगउधवरनदयव।

4.

यहनकअनभयबकनमउककबलधनरवनशमबव०5,00,000/-

र०सनन2010

कमअनततकववपसकरनमकवववदवभदनकयव।

5.

यहनकहमपररववददनमजबअपनमदवरवअनभयबककगनदयमरयमउधवररपयम

ककमवसरनकयवतगअनभयबकहदलवहववलदकरनमलरवऔरअनतततउसनम

उधवरममलदरयदसमपटरररकमककववपसदजररयवचमकदगबवरममभबरतवन

करनमककबवतनकयवऔरआशववसननदयवऔरअपनमआशववसनकममबतवनबक

अनभयबककममबव०2,00,000/-

र०कवएकवउनटपमईचमकसस०083003

नदनवसक20.1.2012

भवरतदयसटमटबहकआजमरढकगनदयवऔरकहवनक

पररववददअभदकबछसमयबवदजबममबतवऊसरवतबचमकअपनमखवतमममजमव करमरव।

6.

यहनकपररववददअनभयबककमनबशववसवबतवनमकमअनबसवरउकचमककग

नदनवसक19.11.2012

ओररएनटलबमकआफकवमसरशवखवमबवरकरपबरमम

अपनमखवतमममजमवनकयवजगअपयवरपफणडकमआधवरपरनहसआनरहग रयव।

7.

यहनकपररववददनमचमक

नहतआनरहगनमककबवतअनभयबककगउससम

नमलकरवयनकरतततरपरबतवयव।

8.

यहनकअनभयबकनमअपनमदवरवनदयमरयमकजरककभरपवईकमललयमहम

पररववददकगपबनतबहकआफमहवरवषनषलसधवरदआजमरढदवरवजवरदचमकसस० 957550

बववतमब०300000/-

तदनलवखरपयवनदनवसक12.09.2012

जवरदनकयव।

9.

यहनकहमअनभयगरदकगअनभयबककमकथनवनबसवरनवशववसकरकमचमक

सस०957550

कगओररएणटलबहकआफकवमसरशवखवमबवरकपबरममअपनम

खवतमममजमवनकयवजगभदपयवरपननलधकमअभववममववपसहगरयव।

10.

यहनकहमअनभयगरदअनभयबककमउकककतयसमदबखदएवसकबधहगकर

अनभयबकसमपबनतसमपकरनकयव।औरबतवयवतगउसनमकहवनकपररववददचमक

सस०957550

कगपबनतबहकममजमवकरदम।उसकमखवतममम3,500,00/- र० (

तदनलवखपचवसहजवररपयम) हह,

भबरतवनहगजवयमरवऔरहमअनभयगरदनम

अनभयबकपरनवशववसकरकम चमकसस०957550

कगपबनतनदनवसक

29.11.2012

कगअपनमखवतमममओररएणटलबहकआफकवमसरशवखव

मबवरकपबरममजमवनकयवऔरउकचमकदगबवरवभदपयवरपननलधकमअभववमम

नहतआनरहगरयव।

11.

यहनकअनभयबकनमबववजटदतलबकरवयवअनभयगरदकमरपयतकगववपस

नहहनकयवऔरउसकमदवरवजवरदनकयमरयमचमकबववत2,00,000/-

र०व

मब०3,00,000/-

र०यवनदमब०5,00,000

र०कवदगरबनवमबव० 10,00,000

र०वसटलनकयवजवनवआवशयकहह।अततशदमवनसमपवथरनवहह

नकअनभयबककगतलबकरउसमदणणडतनकयवजवयतथवउसकमदवरवकजरकक

अदवयरदकमललयमजवरदनकयमरयमचमकसस०83003

नदनवसक20.1.2012 बववत

मब०2,00,000/-

र०कवदगरबनवमबव०4,00,000/-

र०वचमकसस० 957550

नदनवसक12.9.2012

बववतमब०3,00,000/-

र०कवदगरबनवमबव० 6,00,000/-

र०वसटलकरपररववददकगनदयमजवनमकवहहकबमसवनदर

फरमवयवजववम।"

¶7From the perusal of said complaint itself, it is admitted by the opposite party no.2 that the cheque of Rs. 02 lacs was issued by the applicant on 20.01.2012 and the said cheque was presented on 19.11.2012, therefore, the said cheque was presented after its validity period beyond six month. On 19.11.2012, when the said cheque was dishonoured, the said instrument was not a valid instrument for which an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act can be attracted. So far as the cheque of Rs. 03 lacs issued on

12.09.2012 is concerned that was presented within the validity period on 29.11.2012, however, the said cheque was also dishonoured. Therefore, the instant complaint has been filed without making any averment that any demand notice was issued in terms of Section 138 N.I. Act by the opposite party no.2 from the applicant and the applicant has failed to comply with such demand notice. However, along with the complaint, the photocopy of the notice dated 13.12.2012 and the registry receipt dated 13.12.2012 has been annexed. Vide impugned summoning order dated 25.09.2013, the learned Magistrate taking note of the said legal notice and the registry receipt, has issued the summons against the applicant. However, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for both the cheque amounts.

¶8In the considered opinion of this Court so far as the cheque of Rs. 02 lacs is concerned, the same was presented after its validity period, therefore, that will not attract any offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and so far as the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs is concerned for want of any averments in the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act regarding demand notice issued by the opposite party no. 2 from the applicant and failure of compliance on behalf of the applicant to the said demand notice, the complaint is improperly filed and from the plain reading of the said complaint as aforequoted, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is constituted, therefore, the instant application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.

¶9The summoning order dated 25.09.2013 and the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 22 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. Pradeep Kumar Asthana), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 Ashish Pd. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad