Dismissed

Premraj @ Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2021A482/14750/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused the prayer to quash proceedings in a cheque dishonour case. The court directed that if the applicant surrenders within 30 days and applies for bail, it will be disposed of expeditiously. No coercive action will be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash; 30-day grace period to surrender and apply for bail with expeditious consideration; no coercive action during this period.

Premraj @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14750 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Premraj @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Deo Upahdayay,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devesh Nath Tiwari learned A.G.A 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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 971 of 2014 (New No. 1168 of 2019) (Mukesh vs. Premraj), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, summoning order dated 18.12.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 8) as well as Non Bailable Warrant order dated 17.10.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., 8th, Meerut.

¶7

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 is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seeks bail and accepts all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of his bail application.

¶8

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far it relates to seeking quashing of the entire proceedings, summoning order dated 18.12.2015 as well as Non Bailable Warrant order dated 17.10.2018, stands refused.

¶9

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶10

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

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

¶12

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.1.2021 S.S.

Premraj @ Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premraj @ Raju 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

Rasheed Ahamad Kurashi Vs State of U.P.

Basant Lal Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kaliar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dr. Arjun Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jananrdan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another