LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-259

PRATEEK MANGALIK Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On February 05, 2020
Prateek Mangalik Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Singh and Mr. Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

(2.) These two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicant, namely, Prateek Mangalik with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 26.06.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1592 of 2019 (Prakhar Gupta Vs. Prateek Mangalik), under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, Police Station-Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ghaziabad and so far as the applicants, namely, Niharika Mangalik and Prateek Mangalik are concerned, with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 20.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 41 fo 2019 (Prakhar Gupta vs. Prateek Mangalik and another), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Siganigate, District-Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Ghaziabad.

(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that complaint was filed with respect to two cheques bearing nos. 399553 and 399554, which were issued on 02.04.2019 and 07.04.2019, respectively with the allegations that when the cheques in question were presented before the concerned bank, the same were returned by the bank by making endorsement that payment has been stopped by the account holder and then the opposite party no.2 send a legal notice on 21.05.2019 to the applicants and the same has been served but till date, payment was not done, therefore, the complaints have been filed. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that since the opposite party no.2, namely, Pradeep Kumar and Prakhar Gupta closed relatives of the applicants, therefore, money was given as loan on which banker cheques were given in the year 2015 on sureties and the same cheques have been misused for which an application has been moved by the applicants before the concerned police station but nothing was done, thereafter, a complaint was filed, which was rejected, against which, revision has been filed before the concerned court below, which was admitted. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that since the cheques in question have been misused for which a complaint has also been filed, therefore, the present complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 to harass the applicants.