High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rameshwar Prasad Kuchiya Sarraf v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 2651 of 2002  RD-AH 12210 (25 July 2006)
Court no. 19
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2651 of 2002
Rameshwar Prasad Kuchiya Sarraf ............ applicant.
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.