Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESHWAR PRASAD KUCHIYA SARRAF versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rameshwar Prasad Kuchiya Sarraf v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 2651 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 12210 (25 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 19

Criminal Misc. Application No.                2651     of 2002

Rameshwar Prasad Kuchiya Sarraf  ............ applicant.

Vs.

State of  U.P. and  another                    .......opposite parties.

Hon'ble Barkat Ali, Zaidi, J

1. It is being increasingly observed that petitions under Sections  482 Criminal Procedure Code  are filed on the slightest provocation either to delay the proceedings or with some ulterior purpose.In the matter in hand before us there is no justification to file a petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The proceedings relate of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1319 of 1997 Maithili Sharan Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kuchiya Sarraf under Section 138,  The Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the Court of  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi and  are about a dispute of cheque issued by one brother  complainant to the other brother accused in the aforesaid case.

3. I have heard Sri  V.M. Zaidi, Advocate for the applicant Sri Ram Nand Gupt a for the complainant and the learned Additional  Government  Advocate for he  State.

4. The contention form the side of the applicant  is  three -fold;

(i) The first submission from the side of applicant is that under Section 138 of the Act above thirty days notice is required before proceedings being initiated. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that there is no service of notice because there is no postal acknowledgment receipt.

(ii) There is  on record  the copy of the notice along with postal registration receipt  which provides for presumption that the said notice was duly sent and  delivered to the applicant accused. A postal acknowledgment receipt is not a must for proving  the receipt of a registered postal communication.

(iii) The second contention of the counsel for the applicant is that he has denied having issued the cheque. There is no denial from the side of the applicant   of his signatures on the chque.  There is only a general and vague denial that he has not issued the cheque. It is not a correct and total denial.

(iv) The third and last contention is  that there was family settlement about ancestral property between the brothers and there was no need or occasion for the applicant to issue a cheque after  the family settlement agreement.  This plea is wholly irrelevant and without substance.  This court is not supposed to examine  why and for what reason cheque was issued? The Court has only to see whether a proper  cheque duly signed   has been issued, or not, unless of course,  there are allegations of  fraud or treachery  and deceit,  which have to be established by the applicant, in the  trial court. No  such inference can be drawn for the present.

5. Petition   dismissed.

Date:-  July 25, 2006.

nu


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.