VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the summoning order dtd. 30/9/2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Jhansi as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3307 of 2018 (Siya Ram vs Vijay Kumar), under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, police station Prem Nagar, district Jhansi.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire allegations against the applicant are false. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is a business relations between the applicant and opposite party No.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the cheque in question was not issued against any existing debt or liability, but the same was given to opposite party No.2 only for the purpose of security. The opposite party No. 2 had misused the said cheque and falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that neither opposite party No. 2 has made party to the company nor the directors of the company at the time of filing of the complaint. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the notice of demand has not been served upon the company regarding dishonour of cheque issued on behalf of the company, the provision of Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be treated as not complied with and the complaint would not be maintainable in the eyes of law. Referring to the entire evidence available on record, it is submitted that the summoning order is illegal and without application of judicial mind. No cause of action arose to file the complaint.