Allahabad High Court
Jatinder Mittal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 July, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137250
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17172 of 2023
Applicant :- Jatinder Mittal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- T. Islam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Prajapati,Pulak Ganguly
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record on board.
2. Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 55 of 2020 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in brevity ?N.I. Act?) and the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-3, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 436 of 2022. The applicant has also prayed to quash the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 55 of 2020 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Phase-2, Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.
3. Facts culled out from the pleadings as made in the instant application supported by affidavit are that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint dated 04.10.2019 u/s 138 of N.I. Act owing to dishonour of Cheque No. 124804 dated 16.05.2019 amounting Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lacs), which was given by the present applicant (accused) to the opposite party no. 2 (complainant), with an endorsement of the bank to the effect of insufficient fund. Learned trial court, after considering the contents of the complaint and the statement made under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., has issued the summoning order dated 06.02.2021. Having been aggrieved, accused (applicant) has filed revision dated 01.09.2022 along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Learned revisional court, vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023, has rejected the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Having been aggrieved, instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant challenging the summoning order dated 06.02.2021 which has been affirmed by the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the revisional court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised issue with respect to the merits of the summoning order and advanced submission that cheque was deposited on 16.08.2019 and on the same day applicant has got information with respect to the dishonour of cheque. However, notice was prepared on 17.09.2019 and same was dispatched on 18.09.2019, after statutory period of 30 days as required under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, therefore, notice sent by opposite party no. 2 is illegal and against the provisions of law. It is next submitted that the complaint was filed on 04.10.2019, however, as per law it should have been filed within 15 days from the receipt of the registered notice sent to the other side. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the service of notice upon the present applicant. So far as the delay in filing the revision is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as soon as he got information, he has filed the revision after getting the bail order from the court concerned. In support of his case learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Dheeraj Jain vs. State and Ors; 2013(1)Crimes 370(Del.) and Amit Kumar Mishra vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.; 2020(2)RCR (Criminal) 451 as well as judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors.; (2014)2 SCC 424.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the applicant has no locus to challenge the merits of the case before this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arising out of revisional court?s order dated 11.04.2023, whereby application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected. It is further contended that all the possible objections are still open for the applicant to raise before the trial court, which would appropriately be examined after considering the evidence on record. It is further contended that on the face of record, prima facie, complicity of the present applicant in the commission of crime cannot be denied as mentioned in the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is further contended that at this juncture no legal ground is made out to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is next submitted that the instant application is liable to be rejected being misconceived and devoid of merits.
6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that the summoning order has been passed on 06.02.2021, thereafter the applicant has got the bail order from the court concerned on 31.05.2022. It appears that, thereafter, again a non-bailable warrant has been issued against the present applicant vide order dated 05.01.2023. Consequently, present applicant has again moved a bail application on 23.02.2023, which was allowed on the same day i.e. 23.02.2023. Learned revisional court has given a specific finding that notice sent to the applicant was duly served upon him on 27.02.2021, however, revision along with delay condonation application has been filed on 21.09.2022 at highly belated stage and no sufficient reason has been assigned for such inordinate delay. Finding returned by revisional court, qua knowledge of proceeding from the date of service of notice, has not been controverted by the present applicant.
7. So far as the other submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the legality of the notice sent under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act and the filing of the complaint dated 04.10.2019 is concerned, I am of the considered view that at this stage it would not be befitting for this Court to given specific finding in this regard. It is the trial court to consider all these facts after going through the evidence on record. It is still open for the appellant to raise all possible objections before the learned trial court to get the complaint rejected on technical points which have been raised before this Court. So far as the citation produced by the applicant is concerned, same can be produced before the trial court while dealing with the technical points as raised before this Court.
8. In this conspectus, as above, no justifiable ground is made out to interfere in the impugned revisional orders dated 11.04.2023 and the summoning order dated 06.02.2021. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the orders impugned so as to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how present applicant is prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court.
9. Resultantly, instant application, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.7.2023
Pkb/
