Allowed

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024A483/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. directing the trial court to expedite disposal of a cheque dishonour case pending for four years due to non-service of summons, aligning with Section 143(3) of the NI Act and Supreme Court directions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned trial court to proceed with Complaint Case No. 3988 of 2019 expeditiously under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18967

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 121 of 2024 Applicant :- M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Kumar, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

By means of the instant application filed under Section 483 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought a direction for expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No.3988 of 2019 "M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd Vs.Meena Srivastava prop. Nandini Retails", under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is pending in the Court of Negotiable Instruments Act, Additional-11, Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of complaint filed by the applicant on 15.04.2019. The trial court had passed an order on 15.07.2019 summoning the applicant to face trial but case is still continuing at the stage of summoning only.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Other; (2014) 5 SCC 590, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the following directions to the courts all over the country dealing with case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is as under:-

¶11

"23.1 Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

¶12

23.2. MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken.

¶13

23.3. The Court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

¶14

23.4. The Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re- calling a witness for crossexamination.

¶15

23.5. The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, crossexamination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. The witnesses to the complaint and the accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court."

¶16

Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides as follows:-

¶17

"Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint."

¶18

The non service of summons since issuance of the same on 15.07.2019, for more than four years, cannot be appreciated and, in these circumstances, the application is allowed.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, the instant application is allowed and the learned trial court is directed to proceed with the Compliant Case No. 3988 of 2019, under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 expeditiously, in accordance with the statutory mandate contained under Section 143(3) of N.I. Act as also the direction issued to the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others (supra).

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharath Lal Bajpai @ Bharat Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shanu @ Shan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Ashraf Husain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nayum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bachcha Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another