Allowed

Ravindra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023A483/547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to decide the pending Section 138 N.I. Act case expeditiously in accordance with statutory provisions and Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate to conclude the complaint case expeditiously by fixing short dates and imposing heavy costs for unnecessary adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 547 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Prasad Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey 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. 2200 of 2018, Ravindra Prasad Mishra vs. Sanjay Shukla, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad, expeditiously.

¶7

A perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court shows that the aforesaid complaint case has been filed on 11.09.2018. The Trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2019 has summoned the opposite party no. 2 to face the trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. On several occasions opposite party no. 2 did not turn up, therefore, on 08.08.2019 bailable warrant was issued against him. Subsequently on 18.10.2019 non bailable warrant was also issued against opposite party no. 2. The accused appeared before the Trial Court on 20.12.2019, and, on being moved application for bail, he was released on bail. From 18.03.2020 to 08.06.2021 the proceedings were stalled due to Covid-19 pandemic. On 23.09.2021 the proceedings of the case resumed and 26.11.2021 was fixed for evidence.

¶8

It is submitted that the proceedings of the complaint case was

¶9

initiated on 11.09.2018. It is also submitted that several dates have been fixed since 11.09.2018 but no order of moment has been passed. Till date, the statement charge of the opposite party no.2 has not yet been recorded. The case is lingering on since 26.11.2021 and the case is still pending for evidence.

¶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

¶16

conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶22

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

Ravindra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Prasad Mishra 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

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

Roshan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another