Partly allowed

Karan Bansal v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019A482/9097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application seeking quashing of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that disputed facts preclude quashing at this stage but directed the applicant to settle the dispute within four weeks, restraining coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash refused; compromise application to be filed within four weeks; no coercive action for four weeks.

Karan Bansal Vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9097 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Karan Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Bindu Kumari, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 7.2.2018 along with entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1953 of 2017 (Mohd. Minhaz Raza Vs. Karan Bansal), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. 20 NOIDa, District Gautam Bhudh Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Court No. 2, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant is ready to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2 in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU Vs. SAYED BABALAL H. reported in 2010(5) SCC 663.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down

¶10

by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶11

The prayer is refused.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that in case the applicant appears before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and move an appropriate application to compromise the matter, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Court below keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU (supra) within a further period of four weeks after hearing opposite party no.2.

¶13

For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Manoj

Karan Bansal v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Bansal v. State of Up 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

Radha and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Siraju and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Devendra Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haimi Vs State of U.P.

Bua Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravinder Singh Chauhan Vs State of Up and Another