Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme Court Execution of Eviction Decree Limited to Suit Premises; Additional Claims Not Permissible: Bombay High Court Only Apprentices Under the 1961 Act Are Excluded from Gratuity – Calcutta High Court Demand for Penalty and Interest Without Following Natural Justice Violates Section 11A of the Central Excise Act: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Acquits Bank Manager, Citing "Processing Fee, Not Bribe" in Corruption Case Compensatory Nature of Section 138 NI Act Permits Compounding Even at Revisional Stage: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 99 Crore: Faults Adjudicating Authority for Contradictory Findings Section 138 NI Act | Compounding Permitted Even at Revisional Stage with Reduced Fee in Special Circumstances: HP High Court No Renewal, Only Re-Tendering’ – Upholds Railway Board’s MPS License Policy: Delhi High Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Second FIR Against Former Minister in Corruption Case Nature of Suit Must Be Determined on Evidence, Not Technical Grounds: Delhi High Court on Rejection of Plaint Economic Offences Must Be Scrutinized to Protect Public Interest:  Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Against Cloud Investment Scheme Company Golden Hour Care Is a Matter of Right, Not Privilege: Supreme Court on Road Accident Victim Treatment Limitation Law | When Once the Time Has Begun to Run, Nothing Stops It: Supreme Court Section 14 of Limitation Act Shields Bona Fide Claimants: SC Validates Arbitration Amid Procedural Delay Time Lost Cannot Be Restored, But Justice Can: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Convict Declared Juvenile Bailable Warrants in Domestic Violence Cases Only in Exceptional Circumstances - Domestic Violence Act Cases Are Primarily Remedial, Not Punitive: Supreme Court

Discharge Application Under N.I. Act Proceedings Not Maintainable Without Specific Conversion To Warrant Trial : Allahabad HC in Section 138 N.I. Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed an application seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh, in the matter of Jai Prakash Goyal vs State of U.P. and Another, held that a discharge application in N.I. Act proceedings is not maintainable without a specific conversion from a summary to a warrant trial as per Section 259 Cr.P.C.

The court addressed the crucial legal issue regarding the maintainability of a discharge application in cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which pertains to the dishonor of cheques.

The applicant, Jai Prakash Goyal, was implicated in proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act and sought to quash the summoning order and subsequent proceedings. The applicant argued that the complaint was premature and raised issues about the nature of the cheque involved.

The counsel for the applicant contended that as per Sections 143 and 262 Cr.P.C., the procedures for summons and warrant cases are applicable in N.I. Act proceedings, making the discharge application maintainable. However, the learned A.G.A., representing the state, opposed this, stating that without a specific conversion order as required under Section 259 Cr.P.C., such an application is not tenable.

The High Court, upon examining the submissions and relevant legal precedents, concluded that unless there is a specific order converting N.I. Act proceedings from summary to summons or warrant cases, the procedures for summons or warrant cases do not apply. The court affirmed that the discharge application was not maintainable and dismissed it. Nonetheless, the court allowed the applicant to present all arguments during the trial and issued directions regarding the bail application in line with the precedent set in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2021).

Directions for Bail Application: The court directed that if the applicant applies for bail within 15 days, it should be considered in accordance with the law established in the aforementioned case.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Jai Prakash Goyal vs State of U.P. and Another

Similar News