Pawan Bhasin vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 18862 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23368 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Pawan Bhasin
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Chopra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nitin Chopra, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

2. The argument of learned counsel for applicant that cheque in question was given for the purpose of security and the date and amount was filled by complainant is exaggerated so much that even on the basis of admitted document, i.e., agreement between parties, liability if any would not be so much. However, complaint is silent on all these issues. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on judgments passed by different High Courts in Angu Parameswari Textiles (P.) Ltd. And others vs. Sri Rajam and Co. 2001 SCC OnLine Mad 922; Shiju K. vs. Nalini and another, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker. 36498; and, a judgment passed by Delhi High Court in Crl. L.P. 492/2017 (Starkey Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Gujral, decided on 24.09.2019.

3. On the basis of record it is not in dispute that there were financial relationship between applicant and complainant and for that cheques were issued. The averment in the complaint is that in order to satisfy loan as well as benefit, cheque in question was given which was dishonoured. The applicant has not admitted any amount in the complaint. Therefore, the judgments referred above are distinguishable on facts and on law.

4. The submission of counsel for applicant, if accepted, it would amount to conduct a mini trial which is not permissible as held by Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned summoning order. However, applicant has all the opportunity to cross complainant at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. and to press his case for discharge as available under Section 245(1) or 245(2) Cr.P.C., as the case may be.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

6. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court may not be considered a comment on merit of the case.

Order Date :- 25.11.2022/AK

(Sl. No. 11 out of 373 fresh cases)