Dismissed¶12

Pradeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2025A482/27620/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application dismissed; Vakalatnama authority objection; death of cheque drawer during pendency of complaint; son permitted to pursue Section 138 N.I. Act complaint; Complaint Case No.1817 of 2011 [Old No.326/2011], PS Hariparvat, District Agra; Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2023; order dated 28.05.2024 by Additional District Judge-09, Agra; Pradeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; decided 2.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:547.

What did the court decide?

The drawer of the cheque was Kailash Nath Agrawal, who was impleaded as a party in the complaint case and died during its pendency. ¶10

Pradeep Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:547

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27620 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.S. Prajapati, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by Additional District Judge-09, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2023 (Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Complaint Case No.1817 of 2011 [Old No.326/2011], under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for applicant is that application of applicant raising objection against filing of Vakalatnama of Satish Chandra Agrawal without authority was rejected by the court below by order dated 28.05.2024. Against that order, appeal was also rejected. He has further submitted that both the orders are erroneous because Satish Chandra Agrawal was not drawer of the cheque, therefore, Vakalatnama cannot be filed by him in place of drawer of the cheque, who was Kailash Nath Agrawal.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that after death of Kailash Nath Agrawal, his son Satish Chandra Agrawal was permitted to pursue the complaint by concerned court, therefore, he has right to file Vakalatnama to represent him through counsel.

¶10

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the drawer of cheque was Kailash Nath Agrawal who was impleaded as party in the complaint case and during the pendency of complaint Kailash Nath Agrawal has died and his son Satish Chandra Agrawal was permitted by concerned court to pursue the complaint. That order was not challenged by the applicant before any higher court, therefore, present application raising objection on the ground that

¶11

Satish Chandra Agrawal has no authority to file Vakalatnama to represent him is misconceived.

¶12

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Atul

¶14

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

Pradeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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

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

Rajkumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another