Disposed

Amrendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A482/7975/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the application seeking interference in a revision against a summoning order. It held that the revisional court erred in not addressing the applicant's specific plea regarding lack of jurisdiction in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in Case No.8276 of 2019 stayed pending next date of listing.

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

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7975 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Amrendra Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prachish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week.

¶7

Respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks to which the applicant may file reply within next two weeks. List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶8

By means of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BMSS, 2023, the applicant has challenged the summoning order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.7, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.8276 of 2019 in re: Shiv Singh vs. Amrendra Verma, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Copy of the said order is Annexure-1 to the petition. Also under challenge is the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.368 of 2024 in re: Amrendra Verma vs. State of U.P., a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby the revision filed by the applicant against the summoning order has been rejected.

¶9

The legal ground as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant while raising a challenge to both the orders is that the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.7, Lucknow did not have jurisdiction to entertain and issue summoning order dated 29.02.2020 . After issue of the summoning order in the revision which had been filed by the applicant challenging the said summoning order a specific plea was taken in paragraph 23 of the revision, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-12 to the petition, pertaining to learned court not having jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

¶10

The argument is that learned revisional court has failed to go into the question regarding the jurisdiction of the learned trial

¶11

court to entertain the complaint under N.I. Act which was the sine qua non for deciding the revision inasmuch as the learned revisional court has considered the other aspects of the matter without even adverting to the point of jurisdiction as has been specifically raised by the revisionist before the learned revisional court.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and having perused the record, it prima facie emerges that after summoning order dated 29.02.2020 had been issued by the learned court no.7, Lucknow the applicant filed a revision where in paragraph 23 he had specifically averred about the learned court not having jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

¶13

The learned revisional court vide the order impugned has not gone into the aspect pertaining to jurisdiction of the learned court to issue the summoning order although it has passed a very detailed judgment in this regard whereby the revision has been dismissed.

¶14

Once a question of jurisdiction had been raised before the revisional court as such it was the duty of the learned revisional court to have gone into this aspect of the matter which prima facie appears to have escaped the attention of learned revisional court.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid, prima facie, a case for interference is made out. As such, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.8276 of 2019 in re: Shiv Singh vs. Amrendra Verma shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 A. Katiyar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amrendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. 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

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Kalamu Alias Kalam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P.

Ajita Parul Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Asharam Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Nand Lal Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Dept. Lko. and 2 Others

Prashant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another