Disposed

Jananrdan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2021A482/19671/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the impugned orders in a cheque dishonour petition. Instead, it directed the accused to file an application for compounding within one month. The Court granted a five-month moratorium on coercive measures pending the decision on compounding.

What did the court decide?

Relief of quashing refused; direction to apply for compounding granted with a stay on coercive measures for five months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19671 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jananrdan Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite party No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 12.4.2018 and N.B.W. order dated 5.12.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.4, District Mathura arising out in Complaint Case No. 2098/2017, under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Farah, District Mathura.

¶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 order dated 12.4.2018 and N.B.W. order dated 5.12.2019, 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

¶11

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.1.2021 S.S.

Jananrdan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jananrdan Tripathi 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

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

Bechu @ Vijay and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another