Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024A482/26869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside a Sessions Judge's revisional order rejecting the accused's request to present defence evidence in a pending cheque-dishonour case. The court found sufficient opportunity had been given, rejected the application, and directed completion of trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

None; application rejected with direction to trial court to conclude trial within three months.

Om Narayan Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179062

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26869 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Om Narayan Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Gupta,Indra Deo Mishra,Kaveri Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Kaveri Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to set aside the judgement and the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No.1188/2024, Case No.3342 of 2013 (Pradeep Pratap Singh vs. Om Narayan Kushwaha), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting application for permitting him to place his defense which is his valuable right but has been deprived of by the impugned order and revisional court has also failed to consider this aspect.

¶9

However, learned A.G.A. has submitted that trial of this case is pending since 2011 and the applicant has already been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2018, thereafter, accused moved an application for examining handwriting expert which was rejected by the court below on 15.04.2019, thereafter, matter was posted on 05.07.2018, 19.07.2018, 02.08.2018 and again on 23.08.2018 and then on 10.09.2018 and 25.09.2018 but the applicant simply file an affidavit and did not produce any other evidence, thereafter an application dated 09.05.2023 was filed by him for permitting him some more time to file his defense, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order.

¶10

After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the trial of present case is pending since 2011, despite the fact that the statement of the applicant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2018 but he did not produce his evidence except an affidavit

¶11

and kept on lingering the same and thereafter his application for examining handwriting expert was also rejected by the court below and despite sufficient opportunity, applicant did not produce any evidence and thereafter, almost after five years from recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., applicant has filed an application on 09.05.2023, though the case was at the stage of hearing. Above facts show that sufficient opportunity was granted to the applicant to file his evidence but he failed to avail it and kept on taking adjournment or avoiding the hearing during the trial and then filed application in the year 2023 just to delay the trial, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, therefore, present application is rejected .

¶12

This Court further observed that the trial in the N.I. Act should have been completed within six months but surprisingly the trial of the case is pending since 2011, which is not only against the mandate of Section 143 of N.I. Act and also against the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others; (2014) 5 SCC 590 , to expedite the trial under Section N.I. Act, therefore, the court below is directed to conclude the trial of this case within a period of three months.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Jitendra

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Narayan Kushwaha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Prasad Patel vs State of Up and Another

Vikas and Another vs State of Up and Another

Krishna Kumar Shahi Alias Kakun Shahi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Bhati vs State of U.P. and Another