Partly allowed

Smt. Kusumlata Goya v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2019A482/1143/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a section 138 N.I. Act case, the High Court refused quashing, noting an allegation of counter-accusation. The court directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months and barred coercive action against the applicant during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; trial to be concluded within six months; no coercive action till trial concludes.

Smt. Kusumlata Goya Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1143 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Kusumlata Goya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised list. None appeared for the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

¶6

Heard Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.11.2008 passed by Special C.J.M., Meerut in Complaint Case No.3627 of 2008 (M.Goyal Sugar Vs.Smt. Kusumlata) under section 138 N,I,Act., pending before Special CJM, Meerut.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the matter pertains to dishonour of cheque allegedly issued by the applicant to opposite party no.2. Prior to the filing of the complaint the applicant had filed a complaint against the opposite party no.2 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. That as a counter blast of the said complaint filed by the applicant,the opposite party no.2 filed the said complaint against the applicant.

¶9

It is next contended that on filing the complaint by opposite party no.2 against the applicant the Magistrate summoned the applicant without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the applicant has not issued any cheque in favour of opposite party no.2.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶11

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the aforesaid case, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, provided the applicant cooperates with the trial.

¶12

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till the conclusion of the trial.

¶13

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.10.2019 IA

Smt. Kusumlata Goya v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusumlata Goya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Abdul Ayub Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Soni Vs Union of India

Abhinay Kumar Singh @ Rajj and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naman Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Devi and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another