Allowed

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023A483/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an applicant's application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide a pending cheque bouncing case expeditiously, adhering to the six-month timeline mandated by the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to expedite the conclusion of the complaint case by fixing short dates and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 54 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kanhaiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Krishna Kant Yadav 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. 2381 of 2019 (Kanhaiya vs. Ashok Maurya) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police StationGhughuli, District- Maharajganj, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj expeditiously.

¶7

Pleadings of the case indicate that the applicant has filed complaint case on 14.06.2019. On the same day, the trial court has taken cognizance and the case was registered as Complaint Case No. 2381 of 2019 and date was fixed for 13.08.2019 for statement of complainant under Section 200 CrPC. The trial court vide order dated 06.12.2019 has summoned the opposite party no. 2/accused to face the trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. On several occasions, opposite party no. 2 /accused did not turn up, therefore, on 05.02.2020, non-bailable warrant was issued against him. The opposite party no. 2 /accused appeared before the Trial Court and on being moved application for bail, he was released on bail on 27.04.2022. On 06.05.2022, the statement charge of opposite party no. 2 /accused was prepared and 07.06.2022 was fixed for evidence. On 27.07.2022, the opposite party no. 2 /accused was provided an opportunity for crossexamination u/s 254 Cr.P.C. On 28.09.2022, the opposite party no. 2 /accused filed exemption and thereafter, 05.12.2022 and 18.01.2023 were fixed for crossexamination.

¶8

It is submitted that the proceedings of the complaint case was initiated on 14.06.2019. It is also submitted that several dates have been fixed since 14.06.2019 but no order has been passed.

¶9

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.

¶10

It appears that the trial of the case is not progressing with the speed as mandated by Section 143 (2) and (3) of the

¶11

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments 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 Negotiable Instruments 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj 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 :- 15.2.2023 KS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya 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

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

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

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shweta Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another