Patna High Court
MUKESH KUMAR @ MUKESH KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
A stop‑payment instruction does not bar the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the petition for quash is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner Mukesh Kumar filed an application to quash the order dated 14‑06‑2018 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which had taken cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a bounced cheque of Rs.2,75,000. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had offered land, received an advance, and later issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner argued that the cheque was stopped by his instruction, that there were interpolations in the cheque, and that the co‑accused was a habitual litigant, seeking dismissal of the case. The High Court held that a stop‑payment instruction does not defeat the offence under Section 138 and that the lower court was correct in taking cognizance. Consequently, the petition for quash was dismissed and the magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the order taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is proper in view of alleged interpolations in the cheque.
- Whether the petitioner’s instruction to stop payment negates the offence under Section 138.
- Whether the petition can be dismissed on the ground that the co‑accused is a habitual litigant.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- cheque bounce
- quash petition
- criminal procedure
- habitual litigant
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11743 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2860 Year-2017 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Vaishali
======================================================
MUKESH KUMAR @ MUKESH KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Ram
Chhablia Singh Resident of Village- Lakshminagar, Football Ground, P.O.-
Telco, P.S.- Telco Jameshedpur, District- East Singhbhumi, Jharkhand,
Presently resides at Chaklatif, P.O.- Panapur Dharampur, P.S.- Bidupur,
District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Nitesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Awadhesh Prasad Singh Resident of
Village- Erazi Kanchanpur, P.O.- Panapur Dharampur, P.S.- Bidupur,
District- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, XII, Vaishali in Complaint Case No. 2860/
2017 by which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act against this petitioner, pending in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-16, Vaishali at
Hajipur.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11743 of 2020(4) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant
wanted to purchase a plot, and Mukesh Kumar offered one at
Rs. 3,50,000 per Katha. The deal was finalized with Rs.
2,75,000 paid as advance, with Rs. 75,000 to be paid at registry
within one month. The accused repeatedly postponed the
registry. Upon inquiry, the complainant discovered the land was
already sold to others on 6.9.14. At a panchayat, the accused
confessed and gave a cheque for Rs. 2,75,000 (cheque no.
61294 dated 11.9.17), which was subsequently dishonoured on
16.9.17 due to insufficient funds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is the signatory of the cheque and the cheque has
bounced due to insufficient funds in the account. The petitioner
has raised a number of grounds saying that it is the O.P. No. 2
who is a habitual litigant and therefore, this case should be
quashed. He has further submitted that there are some
interpolation/ corrections in the cheques and therefore, the
cognizance has been taken improperly.
5. In my opinion, if cheque has bounced because of
instructions to stop payment issued by the petitioner/ drawer, an
offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out and hence, this
application stands dismissed and the learned court below is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11743 of 2020(4) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
directed to proceed in the matter and the petitioner is at liberty
to raise all grounds before the learned court below in accordance
with law. The case must be disposed of within six weeks.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated through
FAX or e-mail to the Principal District Judge, Vaishali for its
compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.