Disposed

M/S Farms Chemicals and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2021A482/17625/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons and revival of a S. 138 NI Act case, the High Court refused to quash summons. However, relying on Damodar S. Prabhu, the Court directed the accused to appear and seek compounding within one month, granting a five-month stay on coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; accused directed to apply for compounding within one month with a five-month stay on coercive measures.

M/S Farms Chemicals and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17625 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- M/S Farms Chemicals And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manuraj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the revisional Court/ Additional Session Judge, Court No. 16, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 622 of 2019, (Maa Containers v. M/s Farms Chemicals and another), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, district Ghaziabad.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

If the decision of the Court given in light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and they are 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 their attendance as the law permits.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.1.2021 SKT/-

M/S Farms Chemicals and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Farms Chemicals and Another 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

Faisal Vs State of U.P.

Gurmit Kaur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Seema Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Sharma Vs Amit and 5 Others

Awanish Kumar @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.