Disposed¶5

Pradeep Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024/7379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 7379 of 2024, decided 10.9.2024. Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS quashing petition against summoning order dated 06.05.2023 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; plea that complainant's notice was defective; reliance on Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Nimesh B. Thakore, AIR 2010 SC 1402; objections to be raised before trial court; petition disposed of, summoning order not interfered with.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; petitioner left free to raise the objection of defective notice before the learned trial court, which shall decide it in accordance with law after hearing the parties, provided there is no legal impediment; no interference with the summoning order. ¶5

Pradeep Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.3, Faizabad, summoning the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, should be interfered with on the ground that the notice sent by the complainant was defective.

¶3

Court's answer

Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Nimesh B. Thakore (AIR 2010 SC 1402), all objections to the summoning should be raised before the learned trial court itself, and the trial court shall consider them in accordance with law.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the said objections before the learned trial court; if raised, the trial court shall decide them in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶5

Key takeaways

This Court has not interfered with the impugned summoning order.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS challenging summoning order dated 06.05.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.3, Faizabad, in Criminal Complaint No.4469 of 2023 summoning the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — contention that the notice sent by the complainant was defective — Held, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Nimesh B. Thakore, AIR 2010 SC 1402, all objections should be raised before the learned trial court itself, which shall consider them in accordance with law — petition disposed of leaving objections open to be raised before the trial court, to be decided after hearing the parties provided there is no legal impediment — Court made clear it has not interfered with the impugned summoning order.

Pradeep Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shravan Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Lallu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Mahtab Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another