Allahabad High Court
Jamil Khan @ Jamil vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166411
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21846 of 2023
Applicant :- Jamil Khan @ Jamil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar,Ankit Singh Yadav,Hira Lal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 16.12.2021 and proceedings of complaint case no. 1028 of 2020 (Ram Kripal vs. Jamil Khan), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh.
The brief facts which are required to be stated are that a cheque no. 844376 dated 20.01.2020 of sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur was issued by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 (Ram Kripal) for discharging his liablity. The complainant presented the said cheque on 07.02.2020 at Bank of India, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad but he received intimation of its being dishonoured on account of "funds insufficient" on 25.02.2020 at Farrukhabad. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the applicant demanding the amount depicted in the cheque, but the same was not paid by the applicant. After that, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, who took cognizance and summoned the accused-applicant vide order dated 16.12.2021.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the present case, a cheque was issued in Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur whereas the complaint regarding the dishonour of the said cheque has been filed in District Farrukhabad which is not maintainable because the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad has no territorial jurisdiction of this case, hence, the summoning order dated 16.12.2021 is liable to be quashed. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75, submits that a complaint can be filed at the place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured. It is also submitted that the summoning order dated 16.12.2021 has been challenged after inordinate delay on 23.05.2023 without disclosing the present status of the trial proceeding only with a view to linger on the proceeding.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties, examined the matter in its totality as well as considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), I find substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. that the cheque in question was presented for encashment at Bank of India, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, which intimated its dishonour to the complainant on 25.02.2020, therefore, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad would have the territorial jurisdiction of this case, hence, there is no illegality in the summoning order dated 16.12.2021.
The relief as sought by the applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2023
Saurabh
