6/13/12 Saurabh Mahajan vs Ankit Mohan Raturi & Anr on 17 February, 2011

1/2 www.indiankanoon.org/doc/479446/
Mobile View
Blog Links
powered by
User Queries
section 482
stop payment
uttaranchal
"stop payment"
rangappa
s. 482 cr.p.c.
anand
section-482
cr.p.c. s.482
"anand
payment stopped
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer
Uttaranchal High Court
Saurabh Mahajan vs Ankit Mohan Raturi & Anr on 17 February,
2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc.
Application (C482) No. 112 of 2011 Saurabh Mahajan
S/o Col. Nirmal Mahajan
R/o 161/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun ........Petitioner
Versus
1. Ankit Mohan Raturi
S/o Kanti Prasad Raturi
R/o 113/2 Kishan Pur Rajpur Road, Dehradun
2. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Dehradun, Uttarakhand
..........Respondents
Shri Karan Anand, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for
the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal complaint case no. 5694
of 2010 Ankit Mohan Raturi vs. Saurabh Mahajan, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, III, Dehradun.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant has served two notices on the
petitioner in respect of the same cheque, and as such, the criminal complaint is not maintainable.
This Court has considered the point raised before it , and found that in the criminal complaint there
is mention of only one notice dated 09.03.2010, prior to that it is not clear whether oral information
regarding dishonour was given or in writing. The plea of two written notices is raised by the
petitioner (accused) which can be factually examined by the trial court, not by this Court in its
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.. Next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that it
is a case of instruction of 'stop payment' and not the insufficiency of funds as such, the criminal
6/13/12 Saurabh Mahajan vs Ankit Mohan Raturi & Anr on 17 February, 2011
2/2 www.indiankanoon.org/doc/479446/
complaint is not maintainable. However, in view of principle of law laid down by the three judges of
the Apex Court in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, this Court is of the view that even if
the instruction was 'stop payment', the criminal complaint is maintainable.
4. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of 3
Cr.P.C., is dismissed without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case. (Prafulla C.
Pant,J.)
Parul 17.02.2011