Allowed

Tapan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023A483/542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. directing the trial court to unduly expedite a cheque bounce case pending for three years due to the accused's absence. The court ordered coercive measures for appearance and strict adherence to expeditious timelines. The proceedings of the complaint case are directed to be concluded without adjournments unless unavoidable.

What did the court decide?

Directed to procure the appearance of the opposite party/accused using coercive measures and conclude the proceedings expeditiously without adjournments unless unavoidable, subject to heavy costs.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 542 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tapan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. for directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1391 of 2020, (Tapan Kumar Vs. Bhola Nath) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi-Gyanpur, expeditiously.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that complaint case was filed on 29.05.2020 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1391 of 2020, (Tapan Kumar Vs. Bhola Nath). The trial court vide order dated 20.10.2021 summoned the opposite party no. 2/accused to face trial u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The opposite party no. 2/accused did not appear on the date fixed. Opposite party no.2/accused absented himself on several dates when the case was fixed and on 03.01.2021, 30.06.2022, 03.08.2022 and 06.09.2022, the trial court had issued summons against opposite party no. 2/accused but he has not yet appeared.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order sheet of the trial court available on record.

¶8

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. Till date, the opposite party no.2/accused has not yet appeared before the court concerned regardless of the fact that summons have been issued repeatedly against him. The case is pending for about 3 years for the appearance of opposite party no.2/accused.

¶9

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

¶10

143. Power of Court to try cases summarily-

¶11

(2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be

¶12

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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi-Gyanpur is directed to procure the appearance of opposite party no.2/accused by using coercive measures and expeditiously conclude the proceedings of the complaint case by fixing short dates and not giving any adjournment to either of the parties unless it becomes unavoidable and that too, with heavy costs.

¶15

The application is disposed of, accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 KS

¶17

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

Tapan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gunja Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Bablu Alias Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya @ Sandhya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohanlal @ Ram Chandra @ Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arjun Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another