Disposed

Wasim Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024A482/21365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour. Court refused to quash proceedings or stay trial despite applicant's cancer, but disposed of application with a direction for the trial court to consider cancellation of NBW and personal appearance exemption on merits. No coercive action for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to consider cancellation of NBW and exemption from personal appearance; no coercive action for two weeks.

Wasim Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179690

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21365 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Wasim Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4062 of 2022 (Sri Prakash Vs. Wasim Ahmad), under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Mohana, DistrictSiddharth Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant wants to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2, who is Branch Manager of Purvanchal Gramin Bank. As the dispute between the parties is regarding non-payment of loan by the applicant to Purvanchal Gramin Bank. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is patient of Cancer and he is under treatment in AIIMS, New Delhi. Therefore, proceeding may be kept in abeyance and the court below may be directed to exempt his personal appearance.

¶9

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that there is a provision in the Act, 1881 that personal appearance in summary case is not necessary unless the presence of accused is required for evidence.

¶10

After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that applicant had taken a loan from

¶11

Purvanchal Gramin Bank in the year 2013 of Rs.5,98,000/- and applicant could not pay the entire loan and a final settlement has been entered into between the parties that applicant will pay total Rs.4,60,000/- and applicant deposited Rs.60,000/- in loan account and the cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- was issued in discharge of aforesaid liability but same was dishonoured by the bank for insufficiency of fund in the account of the applicant, thereafter, impugned proceeding was initiated.

¶12

Insofar as, contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering from Cancer, cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding or stay the impugned proceeding. However, it is open for the applicant to file an application before the court below to cancel the NBW by submitting his personal bond for appearance and also for exemption of his personal appearance on the ground of his illness.

¶13

Therefore, considering peculiar facts of this case, present application is disposed of with a direction that if the applicant moves an application before the court below for cancelling the NBW and submit his personal bond to participate in the trial proceedings, the court below may consider his application including exemption from his personal appearance in future dates, on its own merit.

¶14

For a period of two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Wasim Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasim Ahmad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Chandak vs State of Up and Another

Rajkumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Shankar@ Shankar vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Yadav Alias Arvind Yadav Alias Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Ankit Brick Industry and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another