HARINAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer.

(2.) This is an application under Sec. 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dtd. 13/9/2024 as well as entire proceedings of complaint case no. 10467 of 2020 (Rajiv Kumar Mishra versus Harinam), under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. 7, Kanpur Nagar..

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 7/8/2020 against the applicant under Sec. 138 of N.I. ACt with an allegation that on different dates, payments were made by the O.P. No.2 to the applicant and when pressure was being mounted upon the applicant, the applicant has drawn a cheque bearing number "034052" dtd. 19/9/2019 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00, which on presentation in the bank on 16/3/2020 came to be dishonoured on 19/3/2020 with the remark "drawer's signature differs". Thereafter on assurance being extended by the applicant herein, again the said cheque was sumbitted in the bank on 6/6/2020 which came to be dishonoured on 9/6/2020 followed by a statutory demand notice on 19/6/2020 and in failing to make the said payment complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and applicant came to be summoned on 13/9/2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason, firstly, there is no date mentioned in the complaint as to when and what amount was paid by the O.P. No.2 to the applicant, secondly, the applicant happens to be the labour being an illiterate person, however, his bank account was opened by the O.P. No.2 while getting a cheque-book issued and making interpolations, the cheque was presented in the bank and got it dishonoured, thirdly, once the cheque stood dishonoured on 19/3/2020 with the remark "drawer's signature differs", then there was no occasion to have again presented the cheque for encashment on 6/6/2020 and getting the cheque dishonoured with the same remark. Fourthly, the O.P. No.2 happens to be a hardened criminal and in this regard, the description and the details of the criminal case against the O.P. No.2 has been in paragraph-6 and 8, fifthly, no enforceable legal debt or liability stands accrued, so as to invoke provisions of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, and sixthly, the cheque was filed after lapsing the validity after 8 and 1/2 months.