Disposed

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

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019A482/9115/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act for alleged false implication and malafide intent, the Single Judge refused to quash the summons but directed the applicant to move a compromise application within four weeks, while staying coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action stayed for four weeks; directed to file compromise application before lower court.

Devendra Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9115 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Nath Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case no.1427 of 2018 (Harendra Tripathi versus Devendra Pandey), under Section 138 N.I. Act pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Deoria and impugned summoning order dated 23.11.2018.

¶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 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.

¶10

The prayer is refused.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that in case the applicant appears before the Court

¶12

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. Order Date :- 8.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Nath Pandey 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

Kaushal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malya Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Others

Jokhan Khan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Rampal and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Chand Pathak Vs State of Up and Another

Sonu@Sunu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another