Disposed

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023A482/43640/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the applicant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount via demand draft within two weeks to initiate mediation for compounding. The applicant must then approach the lower court to seek compounding, ensuring no coercive measures are taken against him for two months or until the decision on the application. The proceedings against other accuseds are unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Directed applicant to deposit 20% of cheque amount via DD for mediation and to seek compounding from lower court within specified timeframe.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43640 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ken Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash Complaint Case No.10787 of 2019 (Marget Rose Walter Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. M.M. Gate, District Agra alongwith cognizance order dated 26.02.2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this matter can be settled through the process of Mediation/compounding in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 .

¶8

In view of the above, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit 20% of the amount payable under the cheque by a Demand Draft drawn in favour of Mediation Centre within a period of two weeks from today, the amount so deposited shall abide by the final decision in this case.

¶9

As requested by the counsel, it is directed that the accused may appear before the court below within a period of one month from today through the representing counsel and move an application seeking compounding of offence through compromise. On such application being moved the concerned court may take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a maximum period of two months from today to make an endeavour in this direction. Thereafter, the court shall pass necessary orders specifically keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra).

¶10

If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and he is further required to appear and face the trial, the court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary steps and measures to procure his

¶11

attendance as the law permits.

¶12

In the aforesaid period of two months or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused.

¶13

It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 A. Sharma

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Ashok Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Israr Vs State of U.P.

Gulfam Ali Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Sewak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another