SUPER COMPUTER AND NETWORK PROP SURAJ KUMAR TASERA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-325
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 29,2014

Super Computer And Network Prop Suraj Kumar Tasera Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA and have been taken through the record. The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Varanasi as well as the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 216 of 2006, Ms. Agarwal Computers v. M/s. Super computers, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants runs the business of computer and its appliances in the name and style of M/s. Super Computer and Network in Mahalla Kadamtar Police Station City Kotwali District Mirzapur. The opposite party No. 2 Mohan Lal Gupta is also running the business of P.C.S in the name of M/s. Agarwal Computers. The applicants and the opposite party No. 2 both having the common interest developed their good business rapport. The opposite party No. 2 by adopting unfair and foul means got the blank cheque of the applicants and on the basis of which he is trying to blackmail the applicants while the applicants have never issued any cheque to the opposite part}' No. 2 The statement of the complainant has been recorded but the same is not on record. On the basis of the affidavit of the opposite party No. 2, the court below has proceeded with the matter to summon the applicants to face the trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicants have neither issued any cheque to the opposite party No. 2 nor have been served with any notice with respect to dishonour of the cheque from the opposite party No. 2. The complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 being sheer abuse of process of law deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity or perversity. The learned Magistrate has found sufficient materials showing the complicity of the applicants.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.