Dismissed

Bhanu Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024A482/6494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. regarding a dishonoured cheque case dating back to 2001, the applicant challenged orders rejecting discharge and revision applications. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the original 2001 summoning order remained valid as it had not been legally interfered with by higher courts, and the impugned orders were correct.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the impugned orders rejecting the discharge application and revision were affirmed.

Bhanu Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50091

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6494 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent(s).

¶7

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "Code") / Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.109 of 2024 in Re: Bhanu Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Another by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur as well as the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.5184 of 2023 in Re: Nazam Anees Vs. Bhanu Prakash, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sultanpur. The copy of the orders dated 24.06.2024 & 01.03.2024 have been filed as annexures 1 & 2 to the petition respectively.

¶8

Brief facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a Cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- had been given by the petitioner to the complainant / respondent No.2 herein in the month of October, 2001. The cheque was dishonoured for the first time on 24.10.2000 on account of insufficient funds. The cheque was presented the second time and again it was dishonored on 27.12.2000. The first legal notice was sent by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner on 05.01.2001. However, no

¶9

complaint has been filed by the respondent No.2 with regard to the first notice. The cheque is said to have been presented for the third time on 05.02.2001 which was also dishonoured on 06.02.2001. A second notice was sent by the complainant / respondent No.2 on 07.02.2001 and thereafter, a complaint, on the basis of the second notice, was filed on 28.02.2001. After the statement under Sections 200 & 202 of the Code were recorded, the petitioner has been summoned by the learned court vide order dated 28.05.2001, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 6 to the petition.

¶10

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application for discharge which has been rejected vide order dated 17.03.2005, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition.

¶11

Still being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision challenging the order dated 17.03.2005 which was registered as Criminal Revision No.132 of 2005. The learned revisional court, vide order dated 08.05.2008, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the petition, set aside the order dated 17.03.2005 and remanded back the matter to the learned trial court for a fresh decision.

¶12

In pursuance thereof, the discharge application of the petitioner was again considered and again rejected vide order dated 05.09.2017, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the petition.

¶13

The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 05.09.2017, filed a revision and the learned revisional court, vide judgment & order dated 08.11.2007, a copy of which is annexure 12 to the petition, dismissed the revision.

¶14

The order dated 08.11.2017 is said to have been

¶15

communicated by the petitioner to the learned trial court by contending that the learned revisional court, while passing the judgment & order dated 08.11.2017, has observed that no summoning order has been passed.

¶16

The learned trial court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, has rejected the said application by contending that vide order dated 05.10.2017, the petitioner's application dated 13.08.2002 has been rejected and that cognizance has correctly been taken.

¶17

Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.03.2024, a revision has been filed by the petitioner namely Criminal Revision No.109 of 2024. The learned revisional court, vide order impugned dated 24.06.2024, has rejected the revision on the ground that the matter is pending since the year 2001 and is about 23 years old and that this Court, vide order dated 09.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the petition, had directed that the case be decided within a period of six months and consequently, the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision.

¶18

Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

¶19

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that considering the observations of the learned revisional court in the judgment & order dated 08.11.2017, wherein the learned revisional court had observed that no order for summoning of the petitioner has been filed, consequently, the order dated 28.05.2001, by which the petitioner had been summoned, loses its efficacy and cannot be read in the eyes of law.

¶20

Further, once the discharge application filed by the petitioner had been rejected vide order dated 17.03.2005 which

¶21

in turn had been set aside by the learned revisional court vide order dated 08.05.2008, consequently, it would be deemed that even the summoning order dated 28.05.2001 had been set aside and does not exist now.

¶22

No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the orders impugned.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, what clearly emerges from the perusal of the record is that after the complaint had been filed under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned trial court, vide order dated 28.05.2001, had summoned the petitioner. The discharge application filed by the petitioner against the said order was rejected vide order dated 17.03.2005. The learned revisional court, vide order dated 08.05.2008, had set aside the order dated 17.03.2005 per which the discharge application filed by the petitioner had been rejected. Being aggrieved, a revision was filed and the revisional court, vide order dated 08.05.2008, set aside the order dated 17.03.2005 and remanded the matter for a fresh decision but the summoning order dated 28.05.2001 was not interfered with. Again, the learned court while considering the discharge application of the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dated 05.09.2017. Upon a revision being filed, the learned revisonal court, vide order dated 08.11.2017, has incorrectly observed that the petitioner has not been summoned without considering that the summoning order dated 28.05.2001 stood good and had not been interfered with by the revisional court in order dated 08.05.2008. However, the revision itself was dismissed. In case, any incorrect observations has been made by the learned

¶25

revisional court and the said order has not been challenged by the complainant / respondent No.2 at any stage, consequently, the petitioner has to thank himself.

¶26

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the summoning order dated 28.05.2001 still stands good as of date.

¶27

The incorrect observation, as made by the learned revisional court vide order dated 08.11.2017 was thought to be advantageous to the petitioner who filed an application and informed this observatoin to the learned trial court which did not correctly find favour with the learned trial court and consequently, the learned trial court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, has rejected the said application which in turn has been affirmed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 24.06.2024.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the summoning order dated 28.5.2001 still stands good as of date and has not been interfered with by the learned revisional court in the two orders passed by it dated 08.05.2008 & 08.11.2017, consequently, no error and infirmity is found with the orders impugned.

¶29

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 S. Shivhare

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhanu Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Vs Mahaveer

Maniram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Deep Chand Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Praween Kumar Pandey and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gyamya Vikas Lko and 12 Others

Suresh Mishra Alias Lala vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.