Disposed

Mohammad Ariz v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023A483/56/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. regarding a pending cheque dishonour case that has faced significant delays due to the accused's non-appearance, directed the trial court to urgently procure the accused's presence, fix short dates, and conclude the trial expeditiously while imposing heavy costs for unwarranted adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to procure the appearance of the accused using coercive measures, fix short dates, avoid adjournments, and conclude the trial expeditiously within the statutory framework.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 56 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Ariz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Manav Chaurasia,Prem Pushp Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prem Pushp Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. for directing the trial court to decide the Complaint Case No. 718 of 2020, (Mohd. Ariz Vs. Mukund Lal Maurya) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Colonelganj, District- Prayagraj, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Allahabad, expeditiously.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that complaint case was filed on 10.09.2020 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 718 of 2020 (Mohd. Ariz Vs. Mukund Lal Maurya). The opposite party no. 2/accused was summoned on 12.08.2021 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. but he did not appear on the date fixed. The court issued bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- on 14.10.2022 against the accused. The case was later fixed on 17.11.2022 and 21.12.2022 but the accused has not appeared in the court.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order sheet of the trial court available on record.

¶9

It appears that the trial of the case is very slow. The proceedings are being delayed due to non-appearance of the accused. The court is not taking coercive measures in accordance with law to ensure the appearance of the accused.

¶10

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

¶11

143. Power of Court to try cases summarily-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as

¶14

expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶15

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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Allahabad is directed to procure the appearance of accused by using coercive measures in accordance with law and expeditiously conclude the disposal of the complaint case by taking statement charge of accused, fixing short dates and not giving any adjournment to either of the parties unless it becomes unavoidable and that too, with heavy costs.

¶16

The application is disposed of, accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 KS

¶18

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

Mohammad Ariz v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ariz 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

Aasma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyendra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another