Rahul Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:627

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24812 of 2024

Applicant :- Rahul Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Chaudhary, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings as well as impugned order dated 20.04.2024 passed by Special Judge N.I. Act, Agra including the orders dated 24.08.2022 and 27.03.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.613 of 2013, under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station- Loha Mandi, District- Agra, pending in the court of Special Act N.I., Agra.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press the prayer to quash the order dated 24.08.2022 and 27.03.2014 passed in the impugned complaint. He confines his prayer only to challenging the order dated 20.04.2024, by which the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned complaint is sincerely based on the reply of the applicant, which was given by him in reply to the email sent by opposite party no.2. But the opposite party no.2 has not filed the copy of email sent by him to the applicant and by his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the applicant had prayed that opposite party no.2/complainant be directed to produce the copy of demand notice sent by him through email to the applicant but the court below had erroneously rejected that application.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned proceeding has been pending since 2013 and discharge application of the applicant has also been rejected by the court below by the order dated 24.08.2022. Therefore, it appears that the intention of

¶11

applicant is to delay the trial.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that the court below has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 on the ground that for deciding the trial in favour of complainant, he is required to prove his case before the trial court and if he does not produce any document in support of his case that will go against him and complainant cannot be compelled to produce any document which he does not want to produce before the court.

¶13

Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the order as it is privilege of the complainant to file particular document and if he does not file a particular document which is necessary to prove his case then it will go against him during trial. Therefore, the applicant cannot compel the complainant to produce any document.

¶14

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. However, from perusal of record, it appears that the impugned complaint has been pending since 2013 and it could not be decided for the reason that numbers of application have been filed by the applicant and it is very surprising that despite expiry of 14 years, the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act could not be decided by the court below though it should have been decided within six month as per the mandate of N.I. Act as well as directions of the Apex Court in the case of Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881, reported in 2021 SCC Online 325 . Therefore, the court below is directed to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No.613 of 2013 within a period of six months from the date of receiving of this order.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of .

¶16

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to Special Judge (N.I. Act), Agra.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 A.Kr.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar @ Bittu vs State of Up and Another

Mahtab Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Heeralal Kureel Alias Heeralal vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Maheswari vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others