Allowed

Mrs. Farhana Parveen v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023A483/536/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. directed the competent Magistrate to expedite the trial of a cheque dishonour case pending for over four years. The Court invoked Section 138 N.I. Act provisions and Supreme Court guidelines to ensure speedy disposal without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate at Allahabad to expeditiously conclude the complaint case by fixing short dates, with heavy costs for unnecessary adjournments.

Mrs. Farhana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 536 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mrs. Farhana Parveen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Srivastava,Abu Bakht Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the court concerned to decide the Complaint Case No. 8521 of 2017, Farhana Parveen vs. Sameer, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut, expeditiously.

¶7

A perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court shows that the aforesaid complaint case has been filed on 07.12.2017. The Trial Court vide order dated 21.03.2018 has summoned the opposite party no. 2 to face the trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Several dates were fixed but the opposite party no. 2 did not turn up, therefore, on 20.12.2018 bailable warrant was issued against him. Subsequently, on 15.10.2019 non bailable warrant was also issued against opposite party no. 2. The accused appeared before the Trial Court on 17.12.2019, and, on being moved application for bail, he was released on bail. From 31.03.2020 to 20.06.2020 the proceedings were stalled due to Covid-19 pandemic. On 16.07.2020 the proceedings of the case resumed. On 16.03.2021 the statement of the accused was recorded and 19.04.2021 was fixed for evidence. On 1312.2021 the applicant was directed to submit list of witnesses and evidence

¶8

in compliance with Section 145 N.I.Act. On 29.09.2022 the applicant filed evidence affidavit and the 10.11.2022 was fixed for evidence of P.W.-1.

¶9

It is submitted that the proceedings of the complaint case was initiated on 07.12.2017. It is submitted that more that four years have been passed but still the case is pending for evidence of P.W.1.

¶10

Looking to the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, issue of notice to opposite party No. 2 is being dispensed with inasmuch as rights of parties are not being determined here in any manner.

¶11

It appears that the trial of the case is not progressing with the speed as mandated by Section 143 (2) and (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act are summary remedy in aid of commercial transactions. The purpose of the remedy is to provide expeditious realization of the proceeds of a cheque that is dishonored. In its nature, it ought to be dealt with swiftly. The court should be vigilant to preclude adjournment of the case on flimsy grounds.

¶12

The provisions of Section 143 (2) and (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for expeditious disposal of case which are as follows :

¶13

143. Power of Court to try cases summarily-

¶14

(2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing.

¶15

(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶16

The Apex Court in " Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881" Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 02 of 2020 has issued guidelines to the Magistrate for expeditious disposal of cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid provisions of Section 143 (2) and (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the guidelines of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad is directed to expeditiously conclude the aforesaid complaint case by fixing short dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, unless it is inevitable and that too, with heavy costs.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid directions, the application is allowed .

¶19

It is made clear that anything said in this order shall not affect the rights of both parties either way and the Trial Court shall be free to decide the complaint in accordance with law and the evidence led by parties unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶21

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

Mrs. Farhana Parveen v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Farhana Parveen 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

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shani Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Niharika Chaubey @ Neha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lakkho Alias Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another

Roshan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another