Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022A482/28353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application to quash an impugned order wherein the trial court closed the applicant's opportunity to produce remaining evidence under Section 138 N.I. Act, finding no illegality as the applicant failed to appear twice after stop orders were passed.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the order closing the opportunity to produce evidence is dismissed.

Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28353 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the order dated 4.5.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Atarra, Banda in Case No.1702/IX/2015 under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Atarra District Banda, by which opportunity to produce evidence by the applicant has been closed by the court below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an accused in the present matter and opposite party no.2 moved a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act and during the pendency of the trial, on 4.5.2022 the court below closed the opportunity to provide remaining evidence by the applicant and therefore, the applicant is aggrieved with the impugned order as it will cause great prejudice to him. He next submitted that the applicant did not willfully fail to produce the remaining evidence. The applicant although could not produce the remaining evidence on 4.5.2022 but he produced the evidence of one Babu Gupta on his behalf, therefore this fact shows that he is cooperating with the trial and is not intentionally delaying the proceedings of the case but in spite of that, court below closed the opportunity to provide remaining evidence by the applicant. He next submitted that one opportunity may be given to the applicant to provide remaining evidence before the court below.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 4.5.2022 as in the said order it is specifically mentioned that on 20.9.2021 and 12.4.2022 last opportunity was given to the applicant to provide remaining evidence but in spite of stop orders dated 20.9.2021 and 12.4.2022 he failed to provide remaining evidence on his behalf on the date fixed i.e. 4.5.2022 and therefore, court below closed the opportunity of the

¶9

applicant to provide remaining evidence and therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 4.5.2022

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submitted that the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act has been filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 18.12.2015 and almost 7 years has been passed but in spite of that, complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is pending and therefore, considering the inordinate delay in deciding the trial of the case, it would be not proper to provide any further opportunity to the applicant to provide remaining evidence especially when he was previously reluctant to produce evidence before court below in spite of stop orders passed by the court below twice and therefore, he submitted that the instant application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

The applicant is the accused and facing trial under Section 138 N.I. Act. A criminal complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicant in the month of December, 2015 and during the pendency of the trial on 20.9.2021 and 12.4.2022, stop orders were passed with the direction that on the next date the applicant shall provide remaining evidence, if any, on his behalf but in spite of the orders dated 20.9.2021 and 12.4.2022, when the case was listed on 4.5.2022 the applicant failed to provide remaining evidence on his behalf and he only produced the evidence of one witness and therefore, court below i.e. trial court closed the evidence of the applicant.

¶13

The trial of the case is pending since 2015 and there is provision under Section 143 N.I. Act which says that any proceedings under the N.I. Act should be completed within six months from the date of filing of complaint case and, on 20.9.2021 and 12.4.2022 stop orders were passed against the applicant and last opportunity was given to him but in spite of that, on 4.5.2022 he did not produce full evidence.

¶14

Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 4.5.2022 and hence, the instant application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 SP

¶16

Digitally signed by SALIM PRAVEJ Date: 2022.09.29 10:58:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Dubey @ Mohan @ Vinay Dwivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Dubey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prayag Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Ahooja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others