Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023A483/580/2022

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 conclude a pending Section 138 NI Act complaint case expeditiously within two months. The court emphasized Section 143(2) and (3) NI Act and ordered prohibition of adjournments on flimsy grounds unless unavoidable and with heavy costs.

What did the court decide?

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to conclude the disposal of the complaint case within two months by fixing short dates, prohibiting adjournments unless unavoidable with heavy cost

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 580 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Mukherji 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 decide the Complaint Case No. 921 of 2018 now numbered as Complaint No. 190 of 2022 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Sector 20 Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Gautam Buddha Nagar, expeditiously.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that complaint case was filed on 28.02.2018. After recording of the statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 16.07.2018, the court summoned the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to face trial u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused did not appear on the date fixed. On 18.03.2019, the trial court fixed 23.04.2019 for issuing bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/-. On 23.04.2019, accused, Kamal Kishore Kajariya, surrendered before the court and was taken in judicial custody and granted bail. On 02.05.2019, the accused, Tarun Kanti Ghosh surrendered before the court and was taken in judicial custody and granted bail. Thereafter, 04.06.2019 was fixed for recording of statement charge of accused. On 04.06.2019, 13.06.2019 and 25.06.2019, exemption applications were filed by the accused for nonappearance. Vide order dated 12.02.2020 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, the case was transferred to Additional Court No. 3, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Again on 24.02.2020, exemption application was filed by the accused. Thereafter, the case was postponed a number of times due to COVID-19 and lockdown from 10.04.2020 to 07.12.2020. On 29.01.2021, exemption application filed by accused, Tarun Kanti Ghosh was allowed at a cost of Rs.300/- and non-bailable warrant was issued for 23.02.2021 against accused, Kamal Kishore. Again exemption application was filed on 23.02.2021 by accused, Tarun Kanti Ghosh on the ground of illness. On 15.04.2021, exemption application was filed by accused, Tarun Kanti Ghosh which was allowed at a cost of Rs.200/-. Thereafter, the case was postponed on 07.05.2021, 22.05.2021, 14.07.2021 and 06.09.2021 due to COVID-19 and lockdown. On 06.09.2021, exemption application was filed by accused, Tarun Kanti Ghosh which was allowed by the court at a cost of Rs.300/and non-bailable warrant of accused, Kamal Kishore Kajariya, was taken back. On 22.10.2021, application for recall filed by

¶7

the accused, Tarun Kanti Ghosh, which was allowed at a cost of Rs.600/-. Thereafter, exemption applications were filed on 30.09.2021 and 07.12.2021 by the accused. On 25.04.2022, the accused did not appear and the court allowed their exemption application at a cost of Rs.1,000/- which was later enhanced to Rs.1,500/-. On 24.06.2022, the statements of accused were recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. The file was again transferred to the court of Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateIInd, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30.06.2022. Again on 13.09.2022 and 14.10.2022, exemption applications were filed by the accused.

¶8

Heard Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, 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 and the accused is delaying the conclusion of the trial as on numerous dates, they are either absent or are filing exemption applications. The court should be vigilant to preclude adjournment of the case on flimsy grounds.

¶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 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Gautam Buddha Nagar is directed to expeditiously conclude the disposal of the complaint case within two months 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 :- 3.2.2023/KS

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Agarwal 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.

Mohammad Ariz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another