Disposed

Mukesh Babu Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024A482/22443/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 CrPC application sought quashing of cheque-dishonour proceedings and a summoning order in Agra on the ground that the cheque was missing. The court held this to be a disputed factual defence, then referred the matter to mediation subject to the applicant depositing Rs.2,05,000, with interim protection from coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to Mediation Centre, High Court Allahabad; interim protection from coercive action upon deposit of Rs.2,05,000 by applicant.

Mukesh Babu Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22443 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Babu Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Gopal,Devashish Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shivakant Dubey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Brij Gopal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.3290 of 2019, under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station-Tajganj, District-Agra ans also quash the summoning order dated 15.04.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.9, Agra, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.9, Agra.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that cheque in question was a missing cheque for which applicant had also moved an application to police, therefore, cheque in question cannot be said to be issued in discharge of any liability.

¶8

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that the ground raised by the applicant is his defence and also disputed question of fact that cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding.

¶9

After hearing submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that ground raised by

¶10

learned counsel for the applicant that cheque in question was a missing cheque is his defence which cannot be considered, at this stage, at the time of quashing the impugned proceeding.

¶11

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant wants to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2 by paying the cheque amount in reasonable time and request is made that the present matter may be referred to the Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that just to show his bonafide, he is ready to deposit the reasonable amount as may be directed by this court within one month.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid request, present matter is referred to the Mediation Centre, High Court Allahabad, subject to the condition that the applicant will deposit a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- by 18.12.2024 with the Mediation Centre, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 on his appearance before the Mediation Centre on a date to be fixed by the mediation center. Balance Rs.5,000/shall be retained by the mediation center towards its expenses.

¶13

Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

¶14

After depositing the aforesaid amount within aforementioned time, notices shall be issued to the parties fixing some date for mediation and the Mediation Centre shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously.

¶15

Put up on 19.12.2024 as fresh.

¶16

It is further provided, if applicant files receipt of deposit of the aforesaid amount before the court below then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case, till the next date of listing.

¶17

It is also made clear that in case the applicant fails to submit the receipt of the aforesaid deposit before the court below then the court below is free to proceed against the applicant.

¶18

The aforesaid amount paid to opposite party no.2 shall be adjusted towards final settlement between the parties regarding the cheque amount.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶20

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

Mukesh Babu Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Babu Tripathi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shere Yadav Alias Jagnnath vs State of U.P.

Nitish Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ram Varan Singh vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India Branch Kayamganj

Lekhraj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahjad Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others