Dismissed

Smt Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024A482/24146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of orders that closed the applicant's opportunity to examine a Bank Branch Manager. The court held the applicant failed to comply with procedural requirements and filed repeated applications for the same relief after prior dismissals for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no opportunity to examine the Branch Manager restored.

Smt Munni Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:163835

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24146 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Munni Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pratap Singh, Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application has been filed for quashing the revisional order dated 04.06.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No.106 of 2023 (Smt. Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 02.02.2023 and order dated 18.03.2023 passed by learned Trial Court in Criminal Complaint Case No.3992 of 2017 (Anoop Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. Smt. Munni Devi) by which learned Trial Court closed the chance of rebuttal of applicant.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that impugned order is absolutely illegal as the courts below has failed to consider that the opportunity of applicant to examine the Branch Manager was necessary in the interest of justice. It is lastly prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and an opportunity may be given to the applicant to examine the Branch Manager regarding the cheque in question which was given by the applicant and the same was dishonoured with endorsement that account has been closed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that though the application of the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine the Branch Manager was allowed but despite sufficient opportunity applicant failed to examine the Branch Manager then an opportunity to examine the concerned Branch Manager was closed vide order dated 10.11.2022. Thereafter, recall application of the applicant to recall the order dated 10.11.2022 was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2023 and applicant did not file any application to recall the order dated 02.02.2023 by which application of the applicant to recall the order dated

¶11

10.11.2022 was dismissed for want of prosecution and he moved second application which was rejected by the concerned court on 18.03.2023 on the ground that for the same relief second application is not maintainable and revisional court recorded this ground while dismissing the revision of the applicant.

¶12

After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that Complaint Case No.3992 of 2017 was filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicant for bouncing of cheque in which summoning order was passed on 27.11.2017. When the applicant did not appear before the court concerned, non-bailable warrant and process under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant on 20.04.2021. It also appears from order sheet of the impugned complaint case that the case could not be decided because of non-cooperation of applicant and again non-bailable warrant was issued on 16.02.2022, which was subsequently recalled on the application of the applicant, thereafter again repeated adjournments were taken by applicant and last opportunity was granted to applicant to submit her defence by order dated 07.09.2022. Thereafter, applicant instead of submitting any defence, had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 24.09.2022 which was allowed by the court below. While allowing this application, concerned Branch Manager was also summoned and applicant could not examine the Branch Manager on 17.10.2022 and 27.10.2022 then opportunity to examine the Branch Manager was closed on 10.11.2022 and applicant filed an application on 25.11.2022 to recall the order of closing his opportunity to examine the Branch Manager but that application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.01.2023, thereafter applicant had not filed any application to recall the order dated 16.01.2023 and filed fresh application to recall the order dated 11.10.2022 and permit her to examine the Branch Manager which was rejected by the court vide order dated 18.03.2023 on the ground that applicant cannot be permitted to file repeated applications and the revision filed by the applicant was also rejected.

¶13

From perusal of record, it is clear that the proceeding of impugned order is pending since 2018 and disposal of the same was delayed because of repeated adjournments for non-appearance on the part of applicant. Even otherwise, once the opportunity of applicant to examine concerned Branch Manager was closed on 11.10.2022 and her application to recall that order was also dismissed for want of prosecution and no application for recall the same was filed, then subsequent application filed by the applicant

¶14

seeking recall of the order by which opportunity to examine the Branch Manager was closed, was not maintainable, therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 18.03.2023 as well as the order dated 04.06.2024 of the revisional court.

¶15

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 is dismissed .

¶16

From perusal of record, it also appears that this Court has already expedited the hearing of impugned proceeding, therefore, it is expected that the court below will decide the same, expeditiously.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Atul

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Munni Devi 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

Abrar Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinay Verama vs State of U.P. and Another

Informant vs State of Upand Another

Irshad and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Krishnapal Singh Tomar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Rajkumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another