Disposed

Shreshtha Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023A482/9858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the High Court refused to quash the sumonis and Section 138 NI Act proceedings. Instead, following Damodar S. Prabhu, the Court directed the applicant to move a compromise application within two weeks, staying coercive measures for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application refused as to quashing; liberty granted to move compromise application within two weeks; stay on coercive measures for eight weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9858 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Shreshtha Kumar Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Ravat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 22.09.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 3044 of 2022 (Vijay Anand Vs. Shreshtha Kumar Kushwaha), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalaun at Orai.

¶7

At the very out-set learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayer made in this application. He further submits that the applicant is ready to settle the dispute in light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Syed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663 .

¶8

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, stands refused.

¶9

However, so far as the last submission made by the counsel is concerned, in light of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), it is directed that the applicant may appear before the court below within a period of two weeks 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 applicant within two weeks thereafter. 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) within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶10

If the decision of the Court given in light of the application does

¶11

not conclude the proceedings against the applicant 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 applicant and take all necessary steps and measures to procure his attendance as the law permits.

¶12

For a period of eight weeks or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant.

¶13

It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by the applicant within the stipulated period of time.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Lbm/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shreshtha Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreshtha Kumar Kushwaha 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

Puneet Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Hasan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhuri Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Batra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another