Dismissed

Sh. Sanjeev Narula v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018A482/36664/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The application to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act invoking Section 482 CrPC was dismissed as it did not disclose abuse of process. The court permitted the applicant to seek discharge from the lower court within one month, restraining coercive measures for three months.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash dismissed; applicant permitted to claim discharge from lower court within one month; coercive measures stayed for three months.

Sh. Sanjeev Narula Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36664 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sh. Sanjeev Narula Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Katyayini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 including the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 555/2016 (Karan Kumar Aroroa v. M/s Lalliput Kidswear Lt. and others) under section 138 of N.I. Act, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Court III, district Gautam Budh Nagar, passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded.

¶8

By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court the applicant cannot persuade the court to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

¶9

The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear.

¶10

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶11

As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge provided if it has not already been decided. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.

¶12

No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

¶13

If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶14

It is clarified that if applicant does not avail of this order within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained.

¶15

With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.11.2018 ssm

Sh. Sanjeev Narula v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Sanjeev Narula v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalaram Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Ankita Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 5 others

Kanti Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sandeep Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Balwant Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samar Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others