Disposed

Laturi Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2020A482/10732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash proceedings and non-bailable warrant issued in a cheque dishonour case. While denying the quashing prayer, the Court directed the applicant to surrender and apply for bail within six weeks for expedient consideration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail within six weeks for expedient consideration.

Laturi Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10732 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Laturi Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case as well as nonbailable warrant order dated 12.03.2020 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Mathura in Complaint Case No.23336 of 2018 (Bhagwan Singh vs. Laturi Singh Yadav), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act extract of order sheet (Annexure no.2).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of illness the applicant could not appear before the court concerned on 12.03.2020. Regarding his absence, he moved an illness application through counsel for the relevant date that he was not feeling well and doctor had advised him for rest but his illness application was rejected. Lastly, he submits that he is ready to face the trial. The reasons on account of which the applicant failed to appear before the trial court were beyond his control and the applicant has every intention to appear before the court concerned and participate in the proceedings of the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant and submits that almost on every date he became absent so order of N.B.W. has been issued against him.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash proceeding of complaint case. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

However, as per order sheet dated 07.03.2020, applicant was present before the court concerned and he is also ready to cooperate in disposal of the trial. In the impugned order, it is also mentioned that after getting bail since 20.06.2019, he did not turn up before the court while as per order sheet dated 07.03.2020, applicant was present before the court.

¶11

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within six weeks' from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided expeditiously, if possible on the same day in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.6.2020 Jitendra

Laturi Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laturi Singh Yadav 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

Udaivir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murshid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krapal Singh Yadav @ Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratibha Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shafiq Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another