Allahabad High Court
M/S Associated Swaitchgears And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150068
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24939 of 2023
Applicant :- M/S Associated Swaitchgears And Projects Ltd.
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Sankalp,Anuj Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash summoning order dated 09.05.2014 as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.614 of 2014/ present Complaint Case No.64 of 2022 (M/s Kumar Enterprises vs. M/s Associated Switchgears & Project Ltd.) under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that instant summoning order dated 09.05.2014 was challenged before the revisional court by filing Criminal Revision No.503 of 2024. Revisional court vide order dated 17.05.2023 dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that summoning order dated 09.05.2014 and revisional court order dated 17.05.2022 are illegal and without application of mind. He next submitted that before submission of cheque to the bank, same was cancelled by the applicant and on that ground cheque was dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that while issuing summoning order to the applicant, learned magistrate has not considered all these aspects. Summoning order is abuse of the process of the court.
4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the trial court has rightly summoned the applicant. Bank has not cashed the cheque submitted by opposite party no.2 and submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is factual dispute which cannot be entertained and considered.
5. After considering the argument raised by both the parties as cheque was initially cancelled by them, therefore, bank has dishonoured the cheque. These are the disputed questions of fact which cannot be entertained or looked into at this stage.
6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
SKD
