Dismissed

Abhimanyu Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024A482/22759/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 application, the High Court refused to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Instead, it directed the applicant to appear in two weeks and kept the issued NBW in abeyance while the trial court decides maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Non Bailable Warrant kept in abeyance for two weeks; applicant directed to appear within two weeks; trial court to decide maintainability and conclude proceedings within six months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119853

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(SN.35)

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22759 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Abhimanyu Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 420 of 2024 (vivek Singh Vs. Abhimanyu Shukla) under section 138 of N.I. Act police station Kotwli Nagar District Banda pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate II, Banda as well as the summoning order dated 30.4.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herein has participated in the trial and was released onbail on 10.8.2022. Thereafter he met with an accident and could not appear before the trial court. However, in the meantime NBW has been issued against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that otherwise also the case is based on a premature complaint as even the demand notice has been sent on 11.2.2019 and the complaint was filed on 26.2.2019 and the applicant herein has already filed an application dated 7.2.2023 for dismissal of the complaint being premature. To the said application objections have already been filed by the opposite party no. 2 and the said application is yet to be decided. To support his submission with regard to the complaint being premature, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgement of Apex Court in the case of Gajanand Burange Vs. Laxmi Chand Goyal 2022 (4) Crimes 346.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court deems it fit to appropriate to dispose of the instant application with a direction to the applicant herein to appear before the trial court within a period of two weeks from

¶12

today and thereafter the trial court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and shall try to conclude the proceedings without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The objections of the applicant with regard to the maintainability of the complaint being premature shall also be decided by the trial court.

¶13

For a period of two weeks from today the Non Bailable Warrants issued against the applicant in the aforesaid case shall be kept in abeyance.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 o.k.

¶15

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhimanyu Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu Shukla 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Indarpal vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhangi Gaur vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Premnath vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of Up and Another