# Pritam Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1086
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 25402 of 2017
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pritam-singh-raghuvanshi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50928
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 202, 202(1), 202(2)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 415 & 420 - - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138: -

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing of criminal proceedings - Complaint
case - Allegation pertains to a commercial
transaction, lacking ingredients of cheating -
alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque in a
business transaction - Summoned under -
Grounds for Quashing - Complaint filed after an
inordinate delay of 11 years, indicating mala
fide intent - No proceedings initiated under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -
Mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. not
conducted, despite applicant residing outside
Magistrate's jurisdiction - Court finds that - No
prima facie case made out under Section 420
IPC - Delay and absence of N.I. Act invocation
weaken the complaint - court finds that,
magistrate failed to record satisfaction or
conduct inquiry as mandated under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. - filing of complaint deemed an
abuse of process to exert undue pressure - held
- dispute between the parties is purely a
commercial dispute and the remedy for the
same lies under civil remedy and the opposite
party no. 2 has given the colour of criminality to
the purely business transaction and also there is
no
element
of
cheating
-
consequently,
proceeding of the complaint case with the
summoning order is quashed - accordingly,
application is allowed.
(Para - 10, 11, 13, 15, 18)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or First Information Report may
be exercised where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case.
The gravity and nature of the crime are the
relevant consideration before exercising the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences which involve moral
turpitude or moral fabric of the society or
have the potential to impact the society at
large cannot be fittingly quashed even the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. In different
situations, the inherent power may be
exercised in different ways to achieve its
ultimate objective.

11. As a fallout and consequence of
above discussion, this Court is not inclined
to accept the submissions made on behalf
of the applicants. The relief as sought for
by the applicants is not liable to be allowed.

12. The application lacks merit, and is
accordingly, dismissed.

13. The copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial Court within a week.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1086
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 25402 of 2017

Pritam Singh Raghuvanshi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Swetashwa Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Abhishek Tripathi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 202, 202(1), 202(2)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 415 & 420 - - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138: -

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing of criminal proceedings - Complaint
case - Allegation pertains to a commercial
transaction, lacking ingredients of cheating -
alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque in a
business transaction - Summoned under -
Grounds for Quashing - Complaint filed after an
inordinate delay of 11 years, indicating mala
fide intent - No proceedings initiated under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -
Mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. not
conducted, despite applicant residing outside
Magistrate's jurisdiction - Court finds that - No
prima facie case made out under Section 420
IPC - Delay and absence of N.I. Act invocation
weaken the complaint - court finds that,
magistrate failed to record satisfaction or
conduct inquiry as mandated under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. - filing of complaint deemed an
abuse of process to exert undue pressure - held
- dispute between the parties is purely a
commercial dispute and the remedy for the
same lies under civil remedy and the opposite
party no. 2 has given the colour of criminality to
the purely business transaction and also there is
no
element
of
cheating
-
consequently,
proceeding of the complaint case with the
summoning order is quashed - accordingly,
application is allowed.
(Para - 10, 11, 13, 15, 18)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & anr.Vs Sudha
Seetharam & anr., reported in (2019) 16 SCC
739,

2. Archana Rana Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported
in
(2021)
3
SCC
751,
3 All. Pritam Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1087
3. Vijay Dhanuka Vs Najima Mamtaj, reported in
(2014) 14 SCC 638,

4. Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs St. of Bihar & ors.,
reported in 2020 (16) SCC 714,

5.
Birla
Corporation
Limited
Vs
Adventz
Investments & Holdings Ltd., reported in 2019
(6) SCC 610

6. Randheer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626,

7. Vijay Dhanuka Vs Najima Mamtaj, reported in
(2014) 14 SCC 638,

8.
Lalankumar
Singh
&
ors.Vs
Sate
of
Maharashtra, reported in 2022 SCC online SC
1383,

9. Gulam Mustafa Vs St. of Karn. & anr.; 2023
SCC online SC 603.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Brijesh Kr. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. Present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
entire criminal proceedings arising out of
Complaint Case No. 1151 of 2017, M/s
Deepak Agro vs. M/s Raghu, under Section
420 IPC, Police Station- Transport Nagar,
District- Meerut along with the impugned
summoning order dated 01.03.2017 passed
by the A.C.J.M. Court No. 8, Meerut.

3. As per the impugned complaint,
applicant and opposite party No.2 were
having business relationship and during the
course of business, opposite party No.2
supplied tractor accessories and other parts
on different dates in the year 2006 to the
applicant. Bill was also raised. It was
further alleged that the applicant instead of
making payment had also given cheque
dated 25.1.2008 of Rs. 38,628/-, but
subsequently, this cheque was bounced
when
presented
before
the
bank.
Thereafter, the applicant kept on assuring
for making payment to opposite party No.2,
but no payment was made. Finally, a
complaint was filed in the year 2017. In
support of his complaint, Vishal Gupta,
who was manager of opposite party No.2,
was also examined and the court below
after
perusal
of
the
complaint
and
statement, summoned the applicant u/s 420
I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has challenged the impugned proceeding on
the following grounds:-

i. The dispute between the
applicant and opposite party no. 2 is purely
a business transaction and no case is made
out as the same is purely a civil dispute and
there are no ingredients of cheating as
defined under Section 415 I.P.C., therefore,
no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is
made out;

ii. As the applicants were residing
at a place which is outside from the
jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned,
the mandatory inquiry as required under
Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. was not conducted
for the purpose of deciding whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding;

iii. The impugned complaint was
filed after the expiry of eleven years from
the date of transaction; therefore, impugned
proceeding was initiated with mala fide
reason to extract money from applicant.

5. In support of his case, learned
counsel for the applicant has also relied
upon the following judgments of Hon'ble
Apex Court:
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

a) Govind Prasad Kejriwal vs.
State of Bihar and Others, reported in
2020 (16) SCC 714.

b) Birla Corporation Limited vs.
Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd.,
reported in 2019 (6) SCC 610.

c) Lalankumar Singh & Others
vs. Sate of Maharashtra, reported in 2022
SCC online SC 1383.

d) Randheer Singh vs. State of
U.P. and Others, reported in (2021) 14
SCC 626.

e) Gulam Mustafa vs. State of
Karnataka and another; 2023 SCC online
SC 603.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has
submitted that while passing the impugned
summoning
order,
learned
Magistrate
formed his opinion regarding prima facie
case after the examination of complainant
and witnesses which is sufficient for the
inquiry as required under Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. as per the mandate of Vijay
Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, reported in
(2014) 14 SCC 638 case.

7. I have considered the rival
submissions and perusal of record, it is
clear from the complaint as well as
impugned order that transaction between
the applicant and the opposite party no. 2,
was done in the year 2006 and initially two
cheques were also issued by the company
of applicant to opposite party no. 2.
Though, it was alleged in the complaint
that both the cheques were bounced but the
opposite party no. 2 had not filed any
complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act and
subsequently after almost eleven years,
impugned complaint was filed. From the
perusal of complaint, it is clear that it was
purely a case of business transaction
between the parties and there was no
element of cheating at the time of business
transaction.

8. For making out a case under
Section 420 IPC, element of cheating must
be there as required under Section 415 IPC.
Section 415 IPC and Section 420 IPC are
quoted hereunder:

"415.
Cheating.?Whoever,
by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property, is said to
"cheat".
Explanation.?A
dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section."

"420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.?Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

9. Similar dispute was also came into
question before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and
another
vs.
Sudha
Seetharam
and
another, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739.
Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment is quoted hereunder:
3 All. Pritam Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1089

"17. A fraudulent or dishonest
inducement is an essential ingredient of the
offence. A person who dishonestly induces
another person to deliver any property is
liable for the offence of cheating.

18 Section 420 of the Penal Code
reads thus:

Section
420.
Cheating
and
dishonestly inducing deliver of property.-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable to being
converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.?

19. The ingredients to constitute
an offence under Section 420 are as
follows:

i) A person must commit the
offence of cheating under Section 415; and

ii) The person cheated must be
dishonestly induced to

(a) deliver property to any
person; or

(b)
make,
alter
or
destroy
valuable security or anything signed or
sealed and capable of being converted into
valuable security.

20. Cheating is an essential
ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence under Section 420."

10. The aforesaid judgment was
further relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Archana Rana vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 751 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that for making out a
case under Section 420 I.P.C., there must
be ingredients of cheating as required under
Section 415 of IPC. On applying the above
principle to the fact in question, it is clear
that there was no ingredient of cheating.
There was allegation that bouncing of
cheques given by applicant during business
transaction in the year 2006 but complaint
under Section 138 N.I. Act was not filed
and impugned complaint was itself filed
after 11 years of bouncing of cheques.
Therefore, no offence under Section 420
IPC is made out.

11. So far as the second question
regarding enquiry under Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. is concerned when the accused
persons were residing at a place beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate
concerned.
This
question
was
also
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima
Mamtaj, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638, in
which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in
such cases, inquiry under Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. is mandatory and in the inquiry
under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., Court is
required to examine witnesses along with
the complainant and only then Magistrate
must make his opinion about prima facie
case. Paragraph 14 of the Vijay Dhanuka
(supra) case is as follows:

"14. In view of our answer to the
aforesaid question, the next question which
falls for our determination is whether the
learned Magistrate before issuing summons
has held the inquiry as mandated under
Section 202 of the Code. The word
"inquiry" has been defined under Section
2(g) of the Code, the same reads as
follows:

"2. (g) 'inquiry' means every
inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under
this Code by a Magistrate or court;"

It is evident from the aforesaid
provision, every inquiry other than a trial
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conducted by the Magistrate or the court is
an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of
inquiry is provided under Section 202 of
the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under
Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are
examined whereas under Section 200 of the
Code, examination of the complainant only
is necessary with the option of examining
the witnesses present, if any. This exercise
by the Magistrate, for the purpose of
deciding whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused,
is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under
Section 202 of the Code."

12. This issue was again considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Govind Prasad Kejriwal vs. State of Bihar
and Others, reported in 2020 (16) SCC
714. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court, in
paragraph
6.5
observed
that
while
conducting the inquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to consider
whether the prima facie case is made out or
not or whether the criminal proceedings
initiated are abuse of process of law or the
Court and also whether the dispute is of
purely a civil nature or whether the civil
dispute is tried to be given a colour of
criminal dispute. Paragraph 6.5 of the case
passed in Govind Prasad Kejriwal (supra)
is quoted as under:

"6.5. Now so far as the reliance
placed on the decision of this Court in the
case of National Bank of Oman vs.
Barakara Abdul Aziz (Supra) relied upon
by the Learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the complainant is concerned, we
are of the opinion that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the said decision
shall not be of any assistance to the
complainant. It cannot be disputed that
while holding the inquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is required to
take a broad view and a prima facie case.
However, even while conducting/holding
an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate is required to consider whether
even a prima facie case is made out or not
and whether the criminal proceedings
initiated are an abuse of process of law or
the Court or not and/or whether the dispute
is purely of a civil nature or not and/or
whether the civil dispute is tried to be given
a colour of criminal dispute or not. As
observed hereinabove, the dispute between
the parties can be said to be purely of a
civil nature. Therefore, this is a fit case to
quash and set aside the impugned criminal
proceedings."

13. The above question was also
considered in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Birla
Corporation
Limited
vs.
Adventz
Investments & Holdings Ltd., reported in
2019 (6) SCC 610. In that case, Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that in the inquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
is only concerned with the allegations made
in the complaint or evidence in support of
the averment made in the complaint to
satisfy himself that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
It was also observed that purpose of inquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to determine
whether a prima facie case is made out and
whether there is sufficient ground of
proceeding against the accused. Paragraphs
26, 27 & 60 of the aforesaid judgment is
quoted as under:

"26.
Complaint
filed
under
Section
200
Cr.P.C.
and
enquiry
contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
and issuance of process:- Under Section
200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on
presentation of the complaint by an
individual, the Magistrate is required to
3 All. Pritam Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1091
examine the complainant and the witnesses
present, if any. Thereafter, on perusal of
the allegations made in the complaint, the
statement of the complainant on solemn
affirmation and the witnesses examined, the
Magistrate has to get himself satisfied that
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against
the
accused
and
on
such
satisfaction, the Magistrate may direct for
issuance of process as contemplated under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. The purpose of the
enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to
determine whether a prima facie case is
made out and whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

27. The scope of enquiry under
this section is extremely restricted only to
finding out the truth or otherwise of the
allegations made in the complaint in order
to determine whether process should be
issued or not under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or
whether the complaint should be dismissed
by resorting to Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the
footing that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding on the basis of the statements of
the complainant and of his witnesses, if
any. At the stage of enquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only
concerned with the allegations made in the
complaint or the evidence in support of the
averments in the complaint to satisfy
himself that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused."

"60. The object of investigation
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is "for the
purpose of deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding". The
enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to
ascertain the fact whether the complaint
has any valid foundation calling for
issuance
of
process
to
the
person
complained against or whether it is a
baseless one on which no action need be
taken.
The
law
imposes
a
serious
responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The issuance of
process should not be mechanical nor
should be made as an instrument of
harassment to the accused. As discussed
earlier, issuance of process to the accused
calling upon them to appear in the criminal
case is a serious matter and lack of
material particulars and non-application of
mind as to the materials cannot be brushed
aside on the ground that it is only a
procedural irregularity. In the present
case, the satisfaction of the Magistrate in
ordering issuance of process to the
respondents is not well founded and the
order summoning the accused cannot be
sustained. The impugned order of the High
Court holding that there was compliance of
the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
cannot be sustained and is liable to be set
aside."

14. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment, it is clear that the Magistrate
while issuing summons upon receiving
complaint must
satisfy
himself
after
making necessary inquiry that prima facie
case is made out against the applicant. In
the present case learned Magistrate has not
recorded
any
reason
showing
his
satisfaction that despite being business
transaction and complaint was filed after 11
years of that transaction, prima facie case
u/s 420 I.P.C. is made out against the
applicant. Therefore, this court held that in
the present case Magistrate has not
conducted mandatory inquiry as required
by Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

15. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and keeping
in mind the law discussed above, the
dispute between the complainant and
opposite party no. 2 is purely a commercial
dispute and the remedy for the same lies
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under civil remedy and the opposite party
no. 2 has given the colour of criminality to
the purely business transaction and there is
no element of cheating. Therefore, Section
420 Cr.P.C. is not made out.

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Others, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626 in
paragraphs 28 and 33 has observed that
when the dispute of civil nature has been
given colour of criminal offence, then it
should be quashed:

"28. In Paramjeet Batra (supra),
this Court held that :-

"12.
While
exercising
its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for
the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. Whether a complaint
discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein.
Whether essential ingredients of criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing
civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted
as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court."

33. In this case, it appears that
criminal proceedings are being taken
recourse to as a weapon of harassment
against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the
cost of repetition that the FIR does not
disclose any offence so far as the Appellant
is concerned. There is no whisper of how
and in what manner, this Appellant is
involved in any criminal offence and the
charge sheet, the relevant part whereof has
been extracted above, is absolutely vague.
There can be no doubt that jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be
used
sparingly
for
the
purpose
of
preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Whether a complaint discloses
criminal offence or not depends on the
nature of the allegation and whether the
essential ingredients of a criminal offence
are present or not has to be judged by the
High Court. There can be no doubt that a
complaint disclosing civil transactions may
also have a criminal texture. The High
Court has, however, to see whether the
dispute of a civil nature has been given
colour of criminal offence. In such a
situation, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings
as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra
(supra) extracted above."

17. Similar observation was made by
the Apex Court in the judgement of Gulam
Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka and
another; 2023 SCC online SC 603 in
paragraph 36 as under:-

"36. What is evincible from the
extant case-law is that this Court has been
consistent in interfering in such matters
where purely civil disputes, more often than
not, relating to land and/or money are
given the colour of criminality, only for the
purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure
on the party concerned, which, we
reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the
process of the court. In the present case,
there is a huge, and quite frankly,
unexplained delay of over 60 years in
initiating dispute with regard to the
ownership of the land in question, and the
3 All. Abhishek Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1093
criminal case has been lodged only after
failure to obtain relief in the civil suits,
coupled with denial of relief in the interim
therein to the respondent no.2/her family
members. It is evident that resort was now
being had to criminal proceedings which,
in the considered opinion of this Court, is
with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons
and is a clear case of vengeance."

18. It is also clear from the record that
impugned complaint was filed after 11
years of disputed money transaction with
ulterior motive.

19. In view of the above, proceeding
of the Complaint Case No. 1151 of 2017,
M/s Deepak Agro vs. M/s Raghu, under
Section 420 IPC, Police Station- Transport
Nagar, District- Meerut along with the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
01.03.2017 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court
No. 8, Meerut, is hereby quashed.

20. Accordingly, the application is
allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1093
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 27006 of 2015

Abhishek Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri Satish Trivedi,
Sri Sheshadri Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Jai Raj, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 202, 202(1), 202(2)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 415 & 420 - - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 7, 9,
138, 142(1) & 142(1)(a) - Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the
summoning order as well as the entire
proceedings - dishonour of cheque - Complaint
Case - applicant argued that opposite party no.
2 is neither the payee nor the holder in due
course of the cheque, making the complaint
legally untenable under Section 142(1)(a) of the
Act - complainant countered that the cheque
was issued to a proprietorship firm owned by
him, thereby making him the holder in due
course and entitled to file the complaint -
Applicant disputes the firm's status, claiming it is
a partnership, which would invalidate the
complaint filed in an individual capacity - while
relying on precedents including Rathish Babu
Unnikrishnan Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), court held
that, the complainant, who claimed to be the
proprietor of a firm is legally entitled to file the
complaint as a "holder in due course" - Even if
the firm were a partnership, the partner would
still qualify to maintain the complaint - since a
partnership firm is not a separate legal entity
from its partners - therefore, the complaint even
on behalf of the partner of a firm in his own
name is maintainable - court being not found
any good ground to interfere in the instant case
in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of
the
Cr.P.C.
-
accordingly,
application
is
dismissed.
(Para - 10, 14, 16)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Milind Shripad Chadurkar Vs Kalim M. Khan &
anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 643/2011,

2. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs St. of (NCT of
Delhi) - 2022 SCC Online SC 513,

3. Tanna and Modi Vs CIT - 2007 vol. 7 SCC
434,

4. CIT Vs R M Chidambaram Pillai - 1977 vol. 1
SCC 431,