Dismissed

M/S Pioneer Industries v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023A482/4948/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order dismissing a cheque bounce complaint for want of prosecution. The Court held that the complainant's absence for four years after the initial stay order constituted deliberate negligence, justifying the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashment of the order dated 26.09.2022 is refused and the application stands dismissed.

M/S Pioneer Industries Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4948 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- M/S Pioneer Industries Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 2896 of 2019 (old no. 258 of 2018) (M/s Pioneere Industries Vs. Smt. Laxmi Palriwal), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad by which the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶7

The case of the applicant is that opposite party no.2 is a proprietor of Laxmi Enterprises (opposite party no.3 herein). The applicant manufactures the packaged material and also did marketing with opposite party no.2 from the year 2012 and opposite party no.1 used to purchase the packaged food regularly from the applicant and on account of the aforesaid business, a sum of Rs. 80,79,918 were due upon the opposite party no.2. On demand being made by the applicant repeatedly, opposite party no.2 has given cheque no. 220069 amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs on 12.01.2017 to the applicant and when the applicant deposited the aforesaid cheque in his bank account, the same was returned due to insufficient funds on 16.01.2017. Thereafter applicant has given a registered legal notice to opposite party no.2 on 27.01.2017 but she has not responded to the said notice, hence the applicant filed a complaint on 10.03.2017 under Section 138 N.I. Act, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2896 of 2019 (M/s Pioneer Industries Vs. Smt. Laxmi Palriwal) and the concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance, has summoned opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 18.06.2017 under Section

¶8

138 N.I. Act. The aforesaid summoning order was challenged by opposite party no.2 before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 21505 of 2018, in which this Hon'ble Court has stayed the proceedings of the complaint case.

¶9

Thereafter, learned court below in absence of any order of stay extension proceeded with the aforesaid complaint case and issued summon to opposite party no.2 on 23.12.2021 fixing 08.02.2022, but no notice or information was given to the applicant. After this several other dates were fixed and lastly the aforesaid complaint has been illegally dismissed exparte vide order dated 26.09.2022 by the court below without considering the factual and legal aspect of the matter.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the complainant who has filed complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act. He further submits that once a summoning order has been issued, which too has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court, and if further proceedings started after four years of the summoning order, it is necessary for the court below before dismissing the complaint to issue a proper notice to the complainant for securing his presence.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and states that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below, which has rightly dismissed the complaint case for want of prosecution.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application specifically the order-sheets of the court below including the order impugned.

¶13

On 23rd December, 2021, the court below has passed following order:

¶14

"दि�नांक-23-12-2021

¶15

प्ቔावल✳ᶵपेᓉᑎहुई勒૭परि�वा�✳ᶵकेअधि�व्ሹाउपቝኌ��त勒૭अभि�यु्ሹ उपቝኌ��तनह䂇㞕है勒૭्ቚ �तुत परि�वा�क쩞롼काय$वाह✳ᶵमानन✳ᶵयउ睶溥न्यायालयकेआ�ेᓉᑎदि�नांदिकत 28-06-2018 ा�$नाप्ቔ अंत्ቇ$त�ा�ा ्ቚ482 संख्या 21505 / 2018 केजरि�येअदि-मधितभि�तकके लिलⓡ⸓��दि्ቇतहै, प�न्तुअ्ቕतन��्ቇनआ�ेᓉᑎ�ालि1लनह䂇㞕दिकया्ቇयाहै勒૭��्ቇनआ�ेᓉᑎ क쩞롼अवधि� 6 माहसेअधि�कव्यत✳ᶵतहꘞꗚचुक쩞롼है勒૭ⓡ⸓भिᓉᑎयनरि�सቛኔ6 िሺस्ቇ ऑቛኔ�ꘞꗚᮜ⸄ⓡ⸓जेन्स✳ᶵ

¶16

¶17

ा०लिल०ⓡ⸓वंअन्यबनामसेन्ट्रलब्यू�ꘞꗚऑቛኔइन्वेቝኌ�ट्ቇेᓉᑎनदिक०अप✳ᶵलसंख्या०्ቚ - 1375-1376/2013 म鳋鰫मानन✳ᶵयउ睶溥तमन्यायालय्ቛ ा�ादि�नांक 28-03-2018 कꘞꗚ पारि�तदिन्ቓ$यके्ቚ काᓉᑎम鳋鰫्ቚ �तुतपरि�वा�म鳋鰫अबमानन✳ᶵयउ睶溥न्यायालयका��्ቇन आ�ेᓉᑎ्ቚ �ाव✳ᶵनह䂇㞕है勒૭अत्ቚ �तुतपरि�वा�क쩞롼काय$वाह✳ᶵ्ቚ ा�म्�क쩞롼जात✳ᶵहै勒૭अभि�यु्ሹ कꘞꗚसमन�ेजाजाये勒૭प्ቔावल✳ᶵवा�तेहाज�✳ᶵदि�नांक 08-02-2022 कꘞꗚपेᓉᑎहꘞꗚ勒૭ "

¶18

Thereafter, on 28^th February, 2022, no one has appeared before the court below due to Covid-19 from the either side. On 7^th March, 2022, counsel for the complainant was present and order of summons were issued by the court below to opposite party no.2. However, on 24^th March, 2022, no one has appeared from the side of the complainant. Thereafter 15^th April, 2022, 18^th May, 2022, 17^th June, 2022, 5^th July, 2022, 13^th September, 2022 were fixed in the aforesaid complaint case of the applicant but no one has appeared from his side in the said case before the Court below and ultimately, on 26^th September, 2022, the court below has dismissed the complaint case of the applicant for want of prosecution.

¶19

For ready reference, order dated 26^th September, 2022 is being quoted herein below:

¶20

" – 26-09-22 दि�नांक

¶21

प्ቔावल✳ᶵपेᓉᑎहुई勒૭पुका�प�समय 03:30 प✳ᶵ०ⓡ⸓म०तकपरि�वा�✳ᶵउपቝኌ��त नह✳ᶵहै勒૭उसक쩞롼त�ቛኔसेकꘞꗚई��्ቇन�✳ᶵनह䂇㞕्ቚ �तुतदिकया्ቇ याहै勒૭परि�वा�✳ᶵकꘞꗚ अቝኌन्तमअवस��✳ᶵदि�याजाचुकाहै, दिቛኔ��✳ᶵपरि�वा�✳ᶵअनुपቝኌ��तचल�हाहै, ऐसा्ቚ त✳ᶵतहꘞꗚताहैदिकपरि�वा�✳ᶵक쩞롼मुक�मालड़नेम鳋鰫कꘞꗚईअभि�रूधिचनह䂇㞕�ह य✳ᶵहै勒૭त�नुसा�परि�वा�प्ቔपै�व✳ᶵकेअ�ावम鳋鰫1ारि�जदिकयेजानेयꘞꗚग्यहै勒૭्ቇ

¶22

आ�ᓉे ᑎ परि�वा�प्ቔ पै�व✳ᶵकेअ�ावम鳋鰫1ारि�जदिकयाजाताहै勒૭प्ቔावल✳ᶵदिनयमानुसा� �ालि1ल�फ्त�हꘞꗚ|”

¶23

From perusal of the aforesaid order-sheet, it is apparent that on various dates after 7^th March, 2022, no one has appeared before the court below either complainant himself or his counsel.

¶24

This is a unique case in which, after filing his complaint case/petition, the petitioner/complainant/applicant himself disappears and does not pursue his complaint case/petition/application, when as a matter of fact it is seen in the most of the cases that opposite party avoids the process of the court and

¶25

¶26

adopts dilatory tactics to linger on the proceedings of the case. In the facts of the present case, the complaint case has been filed in the year 2017 and summons were issued to opposite party no.2 on 18^th June, 2017, the proceedings of which were stayed by this Court vide order dated 28^th June, 2018 in an application filed by the opposite party no.2 being Application U/ S No. 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21505 of 2018. Thereafter the applicant has slept over the said proceedings and not turned up to pursue his complaint case for nearly four years, which shows deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant. This Court may also record that because of such negligence on the part of the complainants, various complaint cases are pending before the court below for their disposal and they shift unnecessary burden upon the court concerned.

¶27

In view of the discussions and deliberations held above, this Court finds that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2, Ghaziabad had not committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in passing the aforesaid order whereby the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed. The aforesaid order is legal and justified and no interference is required at this stage.

¶28

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the order dated 26.09.2022 is refused.

¶29

The application stands dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 21.2.2023 Abhishek Singh

¶31

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Pioneer Industries v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pioneer Industries v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

Mukesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangeeta Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Moti Gond and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shanu Raikwar Vs State of U.P. and Another