Disposed

Dinesh G. Alias Dinesh Gowda v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2019A482/29975/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, holding that defenses like pressure and mala fide intent are for the Trial Court. Instead, the applicant was directed to file a discharge application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Summons order and proceedings quashed with conditions; applicant discharged if files discharge application within one month; coercive action stayed for five months.

Dinesh G. Alias Dinesh Gowda Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29975 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh G. Alias Dinesh Gowda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi,Ram Naresh Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 3.7.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 456 of 2019 (old complaint case no. 912 of 2018) (M/s Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. Dinesh G. alias Dinesh Gowda), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge, Court No. IInd, Ghaziabad.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that by putting undue pressure upon the applicant, the cheque was obtained by the complainant, for that purpose the report has been lodged, which was stated in the reply to the notice. It is further contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that in case, the applicant moves an appropriate application for discharge through counsel before the concerned Court below within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned Court below preferably within a period of four months, thereafter.

¶12

For a period of five months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application whichever, is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶13

In case no such application is filed within a period of one month from today, as prescribed above, the present order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 2.8.2019 Noman

Dinesh G. Alias Dinesh Gowda v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh G. Alias Dinesh Gowda 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

Akaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Alias Ahsok Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Ashim Kumar Natheniel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Kumar Gupta @ Billu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swapnil Varshney Vs State of Up and Another