Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2024A482/5038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court considered allegations of abuse of process by the complainant and her husband filing multiple complaints regarding the same cheque. The court issued notice to the respondent and stayed the impugned interim compensation order.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the impugned order dated 16.3.2024 granted interim compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- u/s 143-Ka(1) N.I. Act until further orders and set aside the notice to the State.

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5038 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint has been filed for the alleged dishonour of cheque No.173782 dated 6.11.2019 amounting to Rs.8 lacs. After filing of this complaint, an application under section 156(3) CrPC was filed by the same complainant on the basis of same cheque No.173782 along with one more cheque, both amounting to Rs.8 lacs.

¶7

Thereafter, one more first information report has been lodged by husband of the complainant registered as first information report No.9 of 2022 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 138 N.I. Act, alleging that an amount of Rs.8 lacs was given to the petitioner vide cheque No.173782 which is the same cheque along with one more cheque, both amounting to Rs.8 lacs.

¶8

It is submitted that both the husband and wife are in nexus and they have indulged into filing of false and fabricated cases against other persons also at the behest of respondent No.2. Reference of 7 cases has been given in para 47 of the petition.

¶9

It is submitted that pursuant to the impugned

¶10

summoning order, the applicant surrendered before the court below and has been enlarged on bail. Thereafter, an application has been moved by the complainant under section 143-Ka(1) of N.I. Act for awarding interim compensation. Upon that, vide impugned order dated 16.3.2024 (supra), the application has been partly allowed directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant within sixty days.

¶11

It is submitted that prior to the impugned order dated 16.3.2024, already two complaints/first information report(s) have been lodged as stated above by respondent No.2 and her husband regarding the same cheque, giving different reasons for filing impugned complaint and application under section 156(3) CrPC. It is thus submitted that the impugned proceedings are nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶12

3.Considering the argument advanced and perusal of the record, I find that the matter requires consideration.

¶13

4.Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶14

Four weeks' time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks then for the rejoinder.

¶15

5.List on 19.7.2024.

¶16

6.Till further orders of the court, the impugned order dated 16.3.2024 passed by Presiding Officer of Special Court No.12 N.I. Act, Lucknow in complaint case No.10661 of 2020 under section 138 N.I. Act shall remain stayed.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.5.2024/kkb/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.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

Pintu @ Tej Bahadur Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mohammed Kasim @ Tohal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko.

Manish Chand Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mubarak Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Ranjana Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Jitendra Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another