Disposed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2021A482/18568/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act but directed the accused to appear within one month to submit a compounding application based on Damodar S. Prabhu. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused during the stipulated period.

What did the court decide?

Prayers for quashing refused; accused granted one month to seek compounding; no coercive measures allowed during the stipulated period.

Smt. Seema Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18568 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Seema Kumari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ms Seema Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 319 of 2019, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hathras as well as the summoning order dated 07.02.2020.

¶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 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.

¶8

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.

¶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 he is

¶11

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.1.2021 Ashish

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema Kumari 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

Neetu Sharma Vs Amit and 5 Others

Awanish Kumar @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another