Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order directing deposit of compensation in a cheque dishonour case. The court found the notice defective regarding the amount and stayed the impugned order pending further hearing.
Impugned order dated 18/09/2025 stayed till next date of listing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9154 of 2025
Ramji Umarvaishy
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
"i. Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon"ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 18/09/2025 passed by the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on Application U/S 389(1) Cr.P.C. & 430 BNSS 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2025, Ramji Umarvaishya Versus State of U.P. and another, so far it relates to deposit the 20% compensation i.e. Rs. 60,000 (Rupees Sixty thousand rupees only) as awarded by the Trial Court, as contained in Annexureno. 1 to this petition, otherwise, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be made good in any event."
"8.2. The condition of notice under Proviso (b) is required to be complied
A482 No. 9154 of 2025
2
with meticulously. Even typographical error can be defence. The error even if typographical, would be fatal to the legality of notice, given the need for strict mandatory compliance. And in the facts of the present. case, the explanation that mentioning of wrong amount in the cheque was in the nature of typographical or inadvertent error could hardly be accepted, for, the so called mistake occurred and recurred in both the notices dated 08.06.2012 and 14.09.2012."
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
October 30, 2025
Sachin
Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notice issued to the applicant was defective due to discrepancy in the amount stated?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kaveri Plastic v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen NoorulRelied on¶12
Kaveri Plastic vs. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, 2025 SCC Online SC 2019 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramji Umarvaishy
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Another
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
