Disposed

Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2022A482/3724/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash summoning order and revisional order for non-mention of trial mode. Court directed lower court to hear parties and record reasons for proceeding via summons trial within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the lower court to hear parties and record reasons for summons trial within six weeks; no coercive action against applicants for eight weeks.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3724 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record.

¶6

The present petition has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 22.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Court, Bijnor in Complaint Case No.651 of 2019 and order dated 16.09.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No.404 of 2019 alongwith the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.651 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station - Chandpur, District - Bijnor, pending in the court of learned Additional Judge, Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order passed by the trial court without mentioning /or observing therein that whether the trial will be conducted as summon trial or the summary trial. The said summoning order dated 22.07.2019 was challenged by the applicant in a criminal revision and the same has been dismissed by the Revisional Court vide its order dated 16.09.2021 with a finding that at the stage of issuing of summons it is not necessary to mention that whether the case will be proceeded as summon trial or summary trial and there is no illegality in the summoning order. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders, the present petition has been preferred.

¶8

It is further submitted that the said observation in the revisional order is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat reported in 2014 (10) SCC 494, wherein the direction have been issued and one of the directions is that the trial court record the reasons in case the Magistrate wants to conduct a summons trial, after hearing the parties. The relevant para i.e. Para 61 of the judgement is quoted hereinbelow:

¶9

"61. However, to summarise and answer the issues raised herein, following directions are issued for the Courts seized off with similar cases:

¶10

1. All the subordinate Courts must make an endeavour to expedite the hearing of cases in a time bound manner which in turn will restore the confidence of the common man in the justice delivery system. When law expects something to be done within prescribed time limit, some efforts are required to be made to obey the mandate of law.

¶11

2. The learned Magistrate has the discretion under Section 143 of the N.I. Act either to follow a summary trial or summons trial. In case the Magistrate wants to conduct a summons trial, he should record the reasons after hearing the parties and proceed with the trial in the manner provided under the second proviso to Section 143 of the N.I. Act. Such reasons should necessarily be recorded by the Trial Court so that further litigation arraigning the mode of trial can be avoided.

¶12

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate should make all possible attempts to encourage compounding of offence at an early stage of litigation. In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy must be given priority over the punitive aspect.

¶13

4. All the subordinate Courts should follow the directives of the Supreme Court issued in several cases scrupulously for effective conduct of trials and speedy disposal of cases.

¶14

5. Remitting the matter for de novo trial should be exercised as a last resort and should be used sparingly when there is grave miscarriage of justice in the light of illegality, irregularity, incompetence or any other defect which cannot be cured at an appellate stage. The appellate Court should be very cautious and exercise the discretion judiciously while remanding the matter for de novo trial.

¶15

6. While examining the nature of the trial conducted by the Trial Court for the purpose of determining whether it was summary trial or summons trial, the primary and predominant test to be adopted by the appellate Court should be whether it was only the substance of the evidence that was recorded or whether the complete record of the deposition of the witness in their chief examination, cross examination and re-examination in verbatim was faithfully placed on record. The appellate Court has to go through each and every minute detail of the Trial Court record and then examine the same independently and thoroughly to reach at a just and reasonable conclusion."

¶16

It is further submitted that the trial court may be directed to hear the parties and record the reasons to conduct the trial as the summons trial or the summary trial and only thereafter proceed with the matter.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through record and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.V. Baharuni (Supra), it is found that in case the Magistrate proposed to proceed as summons trial, he may record reasons after hearing the parties.

¶18

In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.V. Baharuni (Supra), the present application is disposed of with direction to the applicants to move application alongwith certified copy of this order before the court below within two weeks and the court below shall pass an order after hearing the parties within six weeks thereafter mentioning the reasons to proceed as the summons trial.

¶19

Till passing of the order or for a period of eight weeks, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶20

If the certified copy of this order alongwith the application is not produced before the court below within stipulated time, the protection of the order shall automatically come to an end.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.5.2022/S. Kumar

¶22

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.05.20 17:17:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Agarwal 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

Zainul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahim Uddin @ Shanoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseem and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Sumantra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Faizan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bashir Ahmad Vs State of U.P and Another