Dismissed

Yash Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024A482/22846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders closing opportunity to cross-examine a witness in a Section 138 NI Act case was rejected as court found no illegality and directed trial court to conclude pending trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.

Yash Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179901

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22846 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yash Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Daya Shanker Pandey, 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 order dated 03.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (NI Act), Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1469/2024 (Sunder Singh Yadav @ Sunderlal Vs. Yashpal Singh), under section- 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Masuri, District-Ghaziabad as well as order dated 17.05.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No.273/2024 (Yashpal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav @ Sunder Lal and another) and direct the learned trial court to provide the opportunity to the counsel for the accused/applicant for cross-examination of the witness PW-1 in Complaint Case No.1469/2024 (Sunder Singh Yadav @ Sunderlal Vs. Yashpal Singh), under section 138 of the Act, 1881 pending before learned Special Judge (NI Act), Ghaziabad.

¶8

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that this matter was heard on 04.09.2024 and after hearing learned counsel for the applicant, this court was pleased to direct the

¶9

applicant to seek instructions whether the applicant is ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount to get the opportunity to cross examine PW-1 and matter was posted on 28.10.2024 but the applicant failed to inform on 28.10.2024 to the court about the compliance of order dated 04.09.2024.

¶10

When the matter was taken up today then learned counsel for the applicant instead of expressing any willingness on the part of the applicant to comply the order dated 04.09.2024 sought further time but on refusal to grant further time by the court learned counsel for the applicant preferred to argue this matter on merit.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that opportunity to cross examine the PW-1 was closed by the court below on 02.04.2024, to recall that order, applicant had filed a recall application and the same was allowed with cost of Rs.300/- but because of the negligence of his local counsel, neither the cost was deposited nor PW-1 was cross examined. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he may be given one more opportunity to cross examine the PW-1.

¶12

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that though the recall application of the applicant, to recall the order dated 02.04.2024, was allowed with a cost of Rs.300/-, but the applicant neither deposited the cost nor ready to examine the PW-1 despite opportunity given by the court concerned to the applicant that he may cross examine the PW-1 partly today and partly on the next date, but the same was not done by the applicant, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the impugned trial is pending since 2018 and despite repeated opportunity, the applicant did not examine PW-1, then his opportunity to cross examine PW-1 was closed on 02.04.2024. Thereafter, the applicant filed a recall application, which was allowed by the court concerned with a condition that applicant will deposit a cost of Rs.300/- but the applicant did not deposit the same and even did not accept the offer extended by the Presiding Officer to partly examined the PW-1 at any time till 4:00 pm. Therefore, vide order dated 03.05.2024, opportunity given to the applicant to cross examine the PW-1 was again closed. Against that order, the applicant preferred revision, which was rejected by the Revisional Court on 17.05.2024 on the ground that the applicant kept on seeking adjournment instead of cross examine the PW-1 and even then despite giving opportunity to cross examine the applicant by depositing cost of Rs.300/-, applicant did not avail the same.

¶14

From perusal of the above orders, this Court finds that there is no illegality committed by the court below. It is the applicant who is delaying the trial by taking unnecessary adjournments and when his opportunity to cross examine the PW-1 was rejected then the applicant filed recall application, though, the same was allowed but again the applicant did not avail that opportunity on the ground that his counsel was busy somewhere else, is also misconceived because the applicant had not deposited the cost of Rs.300/as a condition to allow his recall application. Applicant has also failed to avail the opportunity to examine PW-1 with a

¶15

condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in pursuance of order dated 04.09.2024 of this court.

¶16

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application is, hereby, rejected .

¶18

It is further provided that the trial of the impugned proceedings is pending since 2018, therefore, trial court is directed to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶20

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

Yash Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Pal Singh 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

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Narayan Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of Up and Another

Wasim Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Danish vs State of U.P. and Another.

Laxmi Narayan Dinkar vs State of U.P. and ANOther