Dismissed¶12

Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2023A482/39951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expeditious-trial direction refused; complaint under S.138 NI Act and S.420 IPC (Complaint Case No. 1715 of 2018) pending since 2018; summoning order dated 20.09.2022; non-bailable warrant against opposite party no.2 dated 10.08.2023; delay attributed to applicant's non-cooperation in recording S.200 Cr.P.C. statement; Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., Allahabad High Court, Application U/S 482 No. 39951 of 2023, neutral citation 2023:AHC:225565, decided 28.11.2023 by Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The delay in the complaint case was found on the part of the applicant himself, whose statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. could not be recorded for a considerable period due to his non-cooperation. ¶11

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225565

¶2

Court No. - 92

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39951 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No.1715 of 2018 (Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. Saurabh Pratap Singh) under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.5, Allahabad in the time bound manner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant complaint case was filed in the year 2018 by the applicant herein and since then the matter is pending and summoning order was passed on 20.09.2022. He further submits that the matter is not progressing due to non-cooperation of opposite party no.2 and non-bailable warrant has already been issued against opposite party no.2. Therefore, he prays for a direction to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the said case.

¶9

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the record of the case. From perusal of record it appears that after filing of the complaint various dates were fixed for recording of statement of applicant herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and due to noncooperation of applicant statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. could not be recorded. When after passing of considerable period the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, the summoning order was passed on 20.09.2022, thereafter, the case is proceeding in accordance with law and the learned trial court is taking all coercive steps as may be taken against the opposite party no.2 for ensuring his presence and on 10.08.2023 non-bailable warrant has been issued against opposite party no.2.

¶10

From perusal of record, it appears that the delay was found

¶11

on the part of the applicant herein in recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The matter is proceeding in accordance with law and the trial court is taking all steps to ensure the presence of opposite party no.2. The non-bailable warrant has already been issued against opposite party no.2. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition at this stage.

¶12

In view of the above, the instant application is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Atul

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mainu Alias Ravindra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Mohammad Ubaish Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Urf Abdul and Another Vs State of U.P.