Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar Vallurupalli And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62449
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31931 of 2019
(Leading Case)
Applicant :- Rajkumar Vallurupalli And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma,Rishabh Agarwal
Connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33085 of 2019
(Connected C-1)
Applicant :- Rajasekhar Vallurupalli
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma,Rishabh Agarwal
Connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33345 of 2019
(Connected C-2)
Applicant :- Rahul Yalamanchilli
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma,Rishabh Agarwal
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants in all applications and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rishabh Agarwal, for opposite party no.2 in leading case and also in connected applications.
2. A joint statement has been made by the counsel for the parties, that they do not propose to file any additional affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record.
3. Since common questions of law are involved in all the three applications. They have been decided by a composite order. The leading application has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. Ms. SEW Infrastructure Ltd and Ors) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the court of ACJM, Jhansi along with summoning order dated 06.03.2019 passed by ACJM II, Jhansi..
4. This Court entertained the present application on 20.08.2019 while passing the following order:
"Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 6.3.2019 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-II, Jhansi.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that although the company, S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited, who issued the cheque was made an accused, but the company was not summoned instead of that entire directors of the company including the authorized signatory has been summoned.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 and submits that unless and until, the main accused is summoned, the other persons cannot be summoned.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite party no.2 is directed to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to summoning order dated 6.3.2019 as well as in the Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-II, Jhansi. "
5. So far as the connected C-1 application is concerned, the same has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s SEW Infrustructure Ltd. and Ors) under Section 138 of N.I. Act P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi. In the said case on 09.09.2019 the following order was passed:
"Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 6.3.2019 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-II, Jhansi.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that although the company, S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited, who issued the cheque was made an accused, but the company was not summoned instead of that entire directors of the company including the authorized signatory has been summoned.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 and submits that unless and until, the main accused is summoned, the other persons cannot be summoned.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite party no.2 is directed to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to summoning order dated 6.3.2019 as well as in the Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-II, Jhansi. "
6. As regards the connected C-2 application is concerned the same has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s SEW Infrustructure Ltd. and Ors) under Section 138 of N.I. Act P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi and this Court on 13.09.2019 was proceeded to pass the following order:
"Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 6.3.2019 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-II, Jhansi.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that although the company, S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited, who issued the cheque was made an accused, but the company was not summoned instead of that entire directors of the company including the authorized signatory has been summoned.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 and submits that unless and until, the main accused is summoned, the other persons cannot be summoned.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite party no.2 is directed to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to summoning order dated 6.3.2019 as well as in the Complaint Case No. 3070 of 2018 (M/s Vinayak Stone Crusher vs. M/s S.E.W. Infrastructure Limited and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-II, Jhansi. "
7. Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant in all the three applications has sought to argue that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one. Firstly, the company which has been made as an accused has not been summoned thus, the summoning order will become vulnerable and vitiated in view of the judgment in the case of Aneeta Hadda vs M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd; (2012) 5 SCC 661 as well as Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthi and another; (2019) 3 SCC 797 and secondly the summoning order is cryptic in nature and shows total non application of mind.
8. Sri Rishabh Agrawal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that there are several legal grounds which are available with him which would be sustain the order which has been the subject the matter of challenge. But according to him the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
9. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the opposite party have no objection to the same.
10. Considering the submissions so made across the bar, coupled with the statement so made therein the applications stands allowed and the order dated 06.03.2019 summoning the applications under Section 138 of N.I. Act in all the applications are set aside. The court below is required to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law with most expedition. Since the parties are themselves presented through their counsels, thus, it would be deemed that they have full knowledge of the order passed today.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025
C. MANI
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
