Rev Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3386

Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30015 of 2024

Applicant :- Rev Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.162 of 2021, under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Etmaddaula, District-Agra, Smt. Shashi Devi Vs Rev Singh, pending in the court of Additional, Court No.2, Agra.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has purchased the land from the opposite party no.2 but the possession of the same was not handed over to the applicant and for that reason, he instructed the bank to stop payment of cheque which was the subject matter of sale consideration of the aforesaid deed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer on the ground that the plea raised by the applicant is his defence and same cannot be considered at this stage.

5. Considering the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that it is not in dispute that cheque in question was issued by the applicant to opposite party no.2 as the land was sold by

1

opposite party no.2 to the applicant and subsequently some dispute arose regarding possession of the land in dispute and for that reason, the applicant has instructed his bank to stop payment of the cheque in question. The Apex Court in the case of Lafarge Aggregates And Concrete India Private Ltd. Vs. Sukarsh Azad And Another reported in 2014 (13) SCC 779 has observed that if the cheque in question has returned with the endorsement 'stop payment' then the plea that instructions for stopping the payment has been given for valid reason can be raised by the drawer of the cheque during trial but cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding.

6. In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding.

7. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 S.Chaurasia

2