Dismissed

Himani Plastics through Proprietor Harinder Pal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021A482/4086/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash summoning and NBI orders in a cheque bounce case, where counsel admitted insufficient grounds. The applicant was granted a one-week reprieve from coercive action to file a recall application for the NBI issued due to failure to appear for bail review.

What did the court decide?

Non-bailable warrant not quashed; applicant granted one week to apply for its recall.

Himani Plastics through Proprietor Harinder… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4086 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Himani Plastics Through Proprietor Harinder Pal Singh Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Daya Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi 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 summoning order dated 20.7.2017 as well as Non Bailable Warrant dated 16.5.2019 passed by learned Additional Court, Court No. 3, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3912 of 2016 (Ajeet Tripathi vs. Himani Plastics through Proprietor Harinder Pal Singh Rana), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants, after making submissions to some extent, has fairly submitted that necessary grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have not been made out in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he does not wish to press the prayer for quashing the proceedings.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant next contended that the applicant was granted bail in the aforesaid pending case on 15.3.2019 however on 16.5.2019 he could not appear as such non-bailable warrant was issued. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that an opportunity may be granted to the applicant to file an application for recall of the order issuing non-bailable warrant.

¶9

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, insofar as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as order issuing non-bailable warrant, stands refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and files an application for recall of the order issuing non-bailable warrants within a period of one week from today, the said application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

For a period of one week 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 17.2.2021 S.S.

Himani Plastics through Proprietor Harinder Pal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himani Plastics through Proprietor Harinder Pal Singh Rana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prakash Mishra 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrinath Chauhan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita Verma Vs State of U.P.

Brij Mohan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharda and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tikatpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another