Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy./Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024A482/4766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging a summoning order in a complaint case arising from a dishonoured refund cheque issued to an RTI requester for excess fees paid. Court issued notice to respondent no. 2 regarding willingness to mediate and granted interim protection against coercive action upon deposit of Rs.11,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Conditional interim protection: no coercive action against applicant if Rs.11,000/- deposited within two weeks.

Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4766 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy./Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arpan Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard and perused the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Ayodhya in Complaint Case No. 5114 of 2016 Inre; Jitendra Pratap Vs. Prabhawati.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is working as a Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Certain information had been applied for under the Right To Information Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 2. In order to get the information, an amount of Rs. 2119/- was paid by the respondent no. 2. Whatever information was available, was supplied and an amount of Rs. 1827/- which was the balance amount, remaining was sought to be refunded to the respondent no. 2 by means of a cheque which could not be honoured on account of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.

¶8

After giving a notice, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 have been initiated by the respondent no. 2.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence committed by him is cognizable offence and he is willing to settle the matter with the respondent no. 2 and prays that the matter may be referred to the mediation center of this Court for the said purpose.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid, issue notice to the respondent no. 2.

¶11

List on 03.09.2024 as fresh on which date the respondent No.2 shall remain before this Court either personally or through counsel to indicate as to whether he is willing to go for mediation.

¶12

It is further provided that in case an amount of Rs.11,000/- is deposited within two weeks from today before this court, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

It is needless to mention that in case the applicant fails to deposit the amount of Rs.11,000/- within a period of two weeks, benefit of this order shall not be available to him.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Pachhere/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy./Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy./Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Thru Secy./G.M. Vs U.P.Cooperative Tribunal and Ors.

C/M Janta Junior High School Sitapur and Another Vs State of U.P. through the Secy. Institutional FINANCIALand Ors.

Mujammil Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others

Suresh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Smt. Ranjana and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others