Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023A482/36686/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed application to quash orders rejecting a Section 138 NI Act complaint due to applicant's absence. Applicant directed to appear for first hearing to present the case. Application partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; applicant directed to appear before Court below on 27.03.2023 with certified copy of this order to present the complaint.

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36686 of 2017

¶2

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

Office report goes to show that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally. Service is sufficient. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in revised call. The matter is pending since 2017.

¶5

Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 08.05.2017 and 08.07.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in Criminal Misc. Case No.366 of 2016 and Complaint No.897 of 2014. It is further prayed to permit the applicant to file fresh compliant case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complaint has been filed with the allegations that there are business transactions between applicant and opposite party no.2 for which the opposite party no.2 issued a Cheque No.760578 of Rs.1,20,247/- dated 17.02.2014 issued from State Bank of India, Branch Banda, District Banda in favour of applicant. The aforesaid cheque was presented by the applicant on 11.03.2014 before the Allahabad Bank, Mahoba Branch, Mahoba, which was returned on 12.03.2014 with a remark "insufficient funds". Consequently,

¶8

applicant gave a legal notice to the opposite party no.2 on 26.03.2014 for which neither reply was given nor payment was made, therefore, the complaint has been filed. He further submits that learned Court below has rejected the compliant under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 08.07.2014 due to absence of the applicant, against which, restoration application was filed, which was also rejected on 08.05.2017. Hence, the present application challenging the aforesaid orders dated 08.07.2014 and 08.05.2017 has been filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant could not appear before the Court concerned after filing of the complaint due to his illness, counsel of the applicant also did not go to press the complaint filed by the applicant. He further submits that for the fault on the part of the counsel, applicant should not be penalized and one opportunity may be given to the applicant to appear before the Court concerned and press this complaint.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that complaint of the applicant has rightly been rejected.

¶11

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders impugned dated 08.05.2017 and 08.07.2014 are hereby set aside . The applicant is directed to appear before the Court below on 27.03.2023 along with certified copy of this order. In case, the applicant appears before the Court concerned on the aforesaid date along with certified copy of this order, opportunity may be given to him to press the complaint.

¶12

The present application is partly allowed subject to the observations made above.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.2.2023/Rahul.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasiya 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

Ram Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulafsha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kripa Shankar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nehrunisha and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zyaul Haque and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakil and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another