SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of instant application the applicant has approached this Court challenging the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2233 of 2021,[Satpal Naagar v. Shiv Kumar Sharma] under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,[the N.I. Act] Police Station Phase-2, District Gautam Buddh Nagar and summoning order dtd. 5/4/2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are; a complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act was filed against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant having good relations with opposite party no. 2 demanded an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000.00 requesting him to become a partner in his business, which was being run by him since 2013. The opposite party no. 2, on the assurance of the applicant, gave an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000.00. It has further been alleged that the applicant, having the intention of cheating, showed profit in the Firm for the year 2014-15 and returned an amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 to the opposite party no. 2. On being asked to return the balance amount, the applicant gave Cheque No. 097414 dtd. 24/3/2021 of Rs.20,00,000.00. The said cheque was presented by the complainant in the Bank on 5/4/2021 which was returned with the remark "Bank Blocked". Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 approached the applicant informing him about return of the cheque by the Bank with the aforesaid remark and requested him to pay the amount as was taken by him, on which the applicant misbehaved with the opposite party no. 2 and used abusive language, threatening for dire consequences and abruptly refused to return the amount. Thus, a legal notice dtd. 17/4/2021 was given by the opposite party no. 2 through registered post, however, the same was alleged to be not accepted by the applicant. The applicant did not return the amount nor submitted reply to the legal notice given by opposite party no. 2, therefore, the present complaint was filed on 27/7/2021. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate, after recording statements under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicant vide order dtd. 5/4/2022 under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) On earlier occasion i.e. 15/2/2023 Sri Omar Zamin, learned Advocate argued the matter at length, however, to respond some specific queries, the case was posted for 21/3/2023 for further hearing, though this Court had expressed its view of not being convinced to grant any relief in favour of the applicant. To utter surprise, on the next date, Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned Advocate stepped in by filing his memo of appearance on behalf of the applicant, whereas he was not in a position to assist the Court even to a tad bit as he appeared to be in oblivion state regarding the facts of the case as also incognizant of the exhaustive and strenuous arguments advanced by Mr. Omar on the previous date. On being insisted to render assistance, Mr. Pandey summed up his arguments in very cavalier and unvirtuous manner. Such practice not only impedes early conclusion of a case but also disparages the profession and is execrated as infelicitous.