Disposed

Shashank Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021A482/13496/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash cheque-dishonour proceedings. Applicant withdrew quashing prayer and sought only expeditious bail hearing. Court refused quashing, directed bail to be approached within 30 days, and restrained coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing; directed applicant to apply for bail within 30 days; restrained coercive action until appearance or expiry of 30 days.

Shashank Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13496 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shashank Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Misra,Radhe Shyam Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Seema Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.136 of 2018, under Section 138 N.I. Act, police station Kotwali, District Jaunpur pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur as well as the summoning order dated 19.09.2019.

¶7

At the very out-set learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order as have been made in the application nor is inclined to press the prayer seeking stay of the proceedings. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the hearing of the bail application may be done expeditiously.

¶8

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

¶9

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

For a period of 30 days from today or till the appearance of the applicants before the court concerned, whichever is earlier no coercive action shall be taken against the them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off.

¶12

It is made clear that no application seeking extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not complied within the aforesaid period.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.1.2021

¶14

S.P.

Shashank Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Seth Ram Swaroop and Company Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Kiran Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Shankar Saini and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Pappu @ Bandar Vs State of U.P.

Rasheed Ahamad Kurashi Vs State of U.P.