Disposed

Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2022A482/8677/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to expedite a pending cheque bounce trial. Directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months and forbidding unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the trial court to decide the pending case within three months of service of the order and issued a direction to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8677 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to direct the learned court below to expedite the trial of Case No.1583 of 2018, under Section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station - Murad Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.3 Ghaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint case is pending before the learned trial court since the year 2018 and period of more than three years have been passed but the trial has yet not been concluded. It is further submitted that Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1881 provides that a trial shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible making all possible endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint, thus, it is prayed that a direction may be given to the trial court to decide the complaint within three months.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer but unable to dispute the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Section 143 (3) of the Negotiable Instrument Act is reproduced hereunder:-

¶10

"Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint."

¶11

Perusal of the aforesaid manifests that Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1881 mandates that every trial shall be concluded within six months from the date of filing of the complaint but in the present case, the trial is pending before the court below since the year 2018 i.e. more than three years.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts, the court below is directed to decide the Case No.1583 of 2018, under Section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station - Murad Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.3 Ghaziabad, within stipulated period, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served before it making all possible endeavour.

¶13

It is made clear that unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties shall not be given and if any adjournment is sought, a short date may be fixed in the case.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.4.2022 S. Kumar

¶16

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.04.19 17:49:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Nath Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Divya Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dustgeer Quresshi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another