"Proceedings Initiated As A 'Counter-Blast' To Complaint Under NI Act": Allahabad HC Quashes Summoning Order In A Cheating Case

The Allahabad High Court has quashed a summoning order in a case for cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy while holding that the case was only filed as a 'counter-blast' to a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed that, "the learned Trial Court did not conduct any enquiry under Section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C since the applicants were residing beyond the local jurisdiction of that Court. The present proceedings are initiated as a counter blast against the applicants. No specific role has been attributed to applicant no. 2 about his involvement in the matter."

Counsel Pranshu Gupta appeared for the applicant.

The complainant filed a complaint against two individuals and the applicant, wherein the dispute revolved around a loan transaction, cheques given as security, and subsequent allegations of fraud and conspiracy. The Trial Court summoned the applicant (present respondent) based on the complaint, leading to a Criminal Revision, which was dismissed.

The applicant argued that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against Neeraj Tyagi. The applicant claimed to have initiated proceedings against Tyagi for dishonoured cheques. The complainant's case lacked evidence, and no inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted, leading to the assertion that the proceedings were malicious and filed with ulterior motives.

Citing various legal precedents, the applicant sought to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the absence of evidence and procedural irregularities. The opposite party, in response, argued that the accused intentionally got a cheque dishonoured and was part of a conspiracy. 

The Court observed that, "opposite party no. 2 did not produce any witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and merely on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and perusing his documents, this impugned order summoning the applicants have been passed by the Magistrate."

The Court also noted that while proceedings under Section 138 N.I Act were pending against opposite party no. 2 on the basis of the same cheque involving the same amount, only after three years of initiation of those proceedings, the present proceeding was brought by opposite party no. 2.

Observing that, "Factual scenario as noted above clearly indicates that the present proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants against opposite party no. 2. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but abuse of process of law.", the petition was allowed.

Appearances:

Applicant: Counsel Pranshu Gupta

Cause Title: Mohd. Amir & Anr. vs State of UP & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment