Dismissed

Jan Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023A482/24028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order in a cheque dishonour case. The court held the application was barred by laches due to an unexplained delay of over seven years, noting the applicant failed to appear despite a non-bailable warrant.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the summoning order is dismissed as barred by laches.

Jan Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24028 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jan Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Farooque Ansari,Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Tripathi,Pradeep Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohammad Farooque Ansari, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for opposite party-2.

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 29.1.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Ist Agra in Complaint Case No. 513 of 2014 (Pradip Kumar Agarwal Vs. Jan Mohammad) under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Sikandara, District Agra as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case now pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra.

¶7

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present application. He submits that present application has been filed after expiry of a period of more than seven years from the date of summoning order i.e. 29.1.2016. As such, present application is hopelessly barred by laches. However, the delay/laches in filing the present application have not been sufficiently explained. As the delay/laches in filing present application have not been sufficiently explained, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶8

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for opposite party-2 submits that applicant was summoned in aforementioned complaint case vide summoning order dated 29.1.2016. However, applicant failed to honour the summons issued by court below. Resultantly non bailable warrant was issued against applciant vide order dated 20.11.2017. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than five years have rolled by from the date of order dated 20.11.2017, applicant has not yet appeared before Court below. On account of non cooperation of applicant, proceedings of above mentioned case have remained held up for approximately seven years. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 143 (3) N.I.

¶9

Act, he submits that the act itself contemplates that proceedings under section 138 N.I. Act should be finalized within a period of six months from the date of notice. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶10

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶11

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.1.2023

¶14

Arshad

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jan Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jan Mohammad 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

Antim @ Anant Chahal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar @ Nirvesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aneesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and 2 Others