TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside previous orders, directs fresh trial under Section 138. Importance of allowing complainants to establish case emphasized.</h1> <h3>Ganga Ram Singh Versus State of U.P. and Ors.</h3> Ganga Ram Singh Versus State of U.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues involved:Challenge to order dated 27.3.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate Nagina, District Bijnor; Revision No. 156 of 1995 vide order dated 16.8.1997 by Additional Session Judge, Bijnor; Dispute regarding dishonored cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; Premature dismissal of complaint; Invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Analysis:1. Challenge to the Order:The application challenges the order dated 27.3.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Nagina, District Bijnor, which was confirmed in Revision No. 156 of 1995 by the Additional Session Judge, Bijnor. The dispute arises from a dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Dishonored Cheque Dispute:The applicant's firm, registered as M/s Singh Brothers, Dhampur, District Bijnor, dealt with Khandsari sugar business. The complainant, managing partner Ganga Ram, alleged that after settling accounts, a sum of Rs. 53,000 was due from the opposite parties. An account payee cheque dated 25.9.1991 for Rs. 54,000 drawn in Canara Bank Dhampur Branch was dishonored for insufficient funds. Notices were sent to the opposite parties, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 20.5.1992.3. Premature Dismissal of Complaint:The counsel for the applicant argued that the dismissal of the complaint by the lower courts was premature. Citing legal precedents, it was contended that the court should have waited for the complainant to establish the case or taken cognizance after the stipulated period. Emphasis was placed on distinguishing between 'taking cognizance of an offence' and the filing of a complaint. The dismissal of the complaint without allowing the complainant to prove the allegations was deemed hasty.4. Legal Precedents and Arguments:Legal arguments were based on decisions such as Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr., Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dolly George, and Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal and Ors. These cases highlighted the importance of not summarily dismissing complaints and allowing complainants to prove their case before dismissal.5. Court's Decision:After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the court found that the trial court should have allowed the complainant to establish the case or taken cognizance after the stipulated period. The dismissal of the complaint was deemed premature. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 27.3.1995 and 16.8.1997 were set aside, directing the trial court to proceed afresh and decide the matter on its merits.This detailed analysis covers the legal issues involved in the judgment, focusing on the challenge to the order, the dispute over the dishonored cheque, the premature dismissal of the complaint, legal precedents cited, and the court's final decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
