Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act as the case involved disputed facts not suitable for pre-trial intervention. The Court directed that the accused be given four months to apply for compounding of the offence, pending which coercive measures would be stayed.
What did the court decide?
Directed the accused to apply for compounding within four months; stayed coercive measures during the pendency of compounding proceedings.
What the court decided
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42 of 2020
Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adison Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Adison Patel, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 7th November, 2017, order issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant dated 11th November, 2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1820 of 2017 (Parmatma Prasad Vs. Jitendra Kumar), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Basti, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Basti.
All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act should be quashed in view of disputed questions of fact.
Whether the applicants should be granted an opportunity to settle the matter amicably by compounding the offence.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Jitendra Kumar
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Manju Rani Chauhan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/42/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court