Dismissed

Mamnoonnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2022A482/8568/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and proceedings in a cheque-bounce case. It directed that a discharge application be considered within three months and stayed coercive action for four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused. Coercive action stayed for four months. Discharge application to be considered if moved within one month.

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

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8568 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mamnoonnisha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 29.09.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 645/2020 (Surya Pratap Singh Shishaudiya Vs. Mamnoonnisha) under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S.- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahar.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that case of the applicant has not been filed within stipulated time by law. It is further submitted that applicant has given Rs. 3.5 lac to opposite party no. 2 in cash and opposite party no. 2 has misused the cheque.

¶8

From the perusal of material on the record and looking into the matter of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶10

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if applicant moves an application for discharge within one month from today before court concerned with certified copy of this order, his application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the court concerned within three months.

¶11

Only till four months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case, subject to law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Vs. CBI (2018) 16 SCC 299.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.7.2022 Sharad/-

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.27 15:03:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mamnoonnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamnoonnisha 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

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another

Aayam Tathagat Banerjee Vs Sneha Banerjee

Tariq Hasan Vs Sufiya

Sharma Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwat Prasad @ Sardar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mannu Alias Ardhendu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another