Partly allowed

Vidhan Ray v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021A482/1018/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge refused application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Section 138 NI Act proceedings chequedishonour. Court directed accused to seek compounding within one month, with a stay on coercive measures for five months, referencing Damodar S. Prabhu.

What did the court decide?

Recused principal prayers for quashing; directed accused to apply for compounding within one month with a stay of coercive measures for five months.

Vidhan Ray Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1018 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vidhan Ray Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Srivastava,Binay Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4987 of 2019 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. Vidhan Ray), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Medical, District Meerut, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut as well as the summoning order dated 30.09.2019.

¶8

At the very out-set learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers made in this application. He further submits that the applicant is ready to settle the dispute in light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Syed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663 .

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, stands refused.

¶10

However, so far as the last submission made by the counsel is concerned, in light of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), it is directed that the accused may appear before the court below within a period of one month from today through the representing counsel and move an application seeking compounding of offence through compromise. On such application being moved, the concerned court may take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a maximum period of four months from today to make an endeavour in this direction. Thereafter, the court shall pass necessary orders specifically keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) within a period of five months from today.

¶11

If the decision of the Court given in light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and he is further required to appear and face the trial, the court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary steps and measures to procure his attendance as the law permits.

¶12

In the aforesaid period of five months or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused.

¶13

It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by the accused within the stipulated period of time. It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved before this Court.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of. Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Lbm/-

Vidhan Ray v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhan Ray 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

Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P.

Brij Nandan Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Nandkishor and Another Vs State of U.P. an Another

Manjeet Singh @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jhamman and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another