Disposed

Praveen Kumar Arya v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. of U,P. Distt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024A483/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench permitted the applicant to correct a discrepancy in the application prayers. It directed the trial court to decide the pending Section 138 complaint case within six months in light of statutory timelines, disposing of the instant expeditions application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer clause correction permitted; trial court directed to decide the main complaint case within six months.

Praveen Kumar Arya vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15500

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 104 of 2024 Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Arya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. Of U,P. Distt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Rashmi Rajvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is some discrepancy/mistake in the prayer clause and he may be permitted to correct the same on his oral request.

¶7

Accordingly, the prayer is acceded.

¶8

The counsel for applicant is permitted to make necessary correction during the course of day.

¶9

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶10

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to expedite the Complaint Case No. 463 of 2016 under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police StationAliganj, District-Lucknow pending before the learned Additional Court, Court No.4, Lucknow.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint case is pending since 2016 without substantial progress. He has further invited attention of this Court towards the Section 143(3) of Negotiable Instruments Act which provides that the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act should be decided within six months.

¶12

In view of the period of pendency of the complaint case and provision of Section 143(3) of Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court is directed to decide the Complaint Case No. 463 of 2016 under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police StationAliganj, District-Lucknow within six months from the date of certified copy of this order.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the present application under Section 483 CrPC is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.2.2024/Raj

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Praveen Kumar Arya v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. of U,P. Distt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Arya v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. of U,P. Distt. Lko. and Others

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

Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Suraj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Sayed Shane Haider Naqvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home), Lucknow and Another

Praveen Kumar Arya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. of U,P. Distt. Lko. and Others

Nihal Kharwar @ Nihal Kumar @ Nihal Kumhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Raj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another