Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 99721 (ALL)

SURENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

A482/32308/2024 · 2025-01-24

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13124 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32308 of 2024 Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.A.,Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case No. 5323 of 2023 (Kapil Kumar vs. Surendra Kumar), under Sections 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Amroha as well as summoning order dated 20.6.2024. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was a missing cheque and same was not issued in discharge of any liability. As soon as the applicant came to know about bouncing of the cheque in question on the ground of insufficiency of fund, he immediately lodged an F.I.R. It is further submitted that apart from informing the police, the applicant also intimated the bank to stop payment and for that reason, the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of stop payment and not for insufficiency of fund. 4. However, learned A.G.A. states that the ground raised by the applicant is his defence which cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding. 5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that initially the cheque in question was returned by the bank with the endorsement "fund insufficient". Thereafter, the applicant lodged an F.I.R. and also instructed the bank to stop payment. Therefore, all steps have been taken by the applicant after bouncing of the cheque. However, these grounds can be raised by the applicant during trial, but cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding. 6. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 7. However, ti is open for the applicant to appear before the court below and apply for bail. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad