Partly allowed

Sanjeev Sahu @ Munna v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2022CRLR/142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision filed against an impugned order issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the process as the Additional Presiding Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding the accused's absence or issue a proclamation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.12.2021 issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is quashed.

Sanjeev Sahu @ Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 142 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Sanjeev Sahu @ Munna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikram Singh Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to set aside the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Presiding Officer, District Jhansi in case no. 921 of 2019, Amrapur General Store Vs. Sanjeev Sahu, under section 138 N.I. Act, police station Kotwali, District Jhansi.

¶7

I have gone through the impugned order available on record, non bailable warrants and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued simultaneously against the present revisionist.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that both proceedings can not be initiated simultaneously. As per Section 82 Cr.P.C., the court has to record the reason that the revisionist against whom the warrants have been issued by the court has absconded and concealing / abstaining himself from appearing in the court. The court may publish a written proclamation requiring the person to appear on specified date not less than 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation. It is further argued that neither any belief of the court has been recorded nor one month proclamation has been issued.

¶9

A perusal of the order shows that the officer concerned has issued process under section 82 Cr.P.C. without following the due procedure mentioned therein. He has also not mentioned his satisfaction regarding the fact that the accused is absconding or concealing / abstaining himself from appearing in the court. The proclamation has not been issued requiring him to appear on a specified date not less than 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

¶10

In view of the above, the revision is allowed and the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Presiding Officer, District Jhansi in case no. 921 of 2019, Amrapur General Store Vs. Sanjeev Sahu, under section 138 N.I. Act, police station Kotwali, District Jhansi is quashed to the extent of process

¶11

issued under section 82 Cr.P.C.

¶12

The order of non bailable warrants issued against the revisionist shall remain in tact.

¶13

The revision is allowed accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.2.2022 Gss

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.25 10:11:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Sahu @ Munna v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Sahu @ Munna 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sadakat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagdish Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P.and Another

Krishna Murari Chaubey Vs Smt. Madhuri Shukla