Disposed

Mohammad Saalim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2025A482/9645/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash proceedings for dishonour of a cheque. The court found no manifest illegality but noted the applicant's willingness to cooperate and mediate. The application was disposed of by declining to quash proceedings, allowing compounding under Damodar S. Prabhu, and staying coercive steps for three months.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; quashing declined; compounding allowed; coercive steps stayed for 3 months.

Mohammad Saalim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9645 of 2025

Mohammad Saalim

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Srivastava, Abid Hussain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This application has been filed with the following main relief :

¶11

"I. Issue a suitable order or direction to allow the application and quash the quashing the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions judge/Special Judge/ PC Act I, Lucknow bearing criminal case no. 752 of 2024 "Mohd. Salim vs. State of U.P" under section 138 N.I Act, Police Station- Varisganj, DistrictLucknow, as well as order dated 26.07.2024 passed by prescribed authority Special court NI Act,Lucknow under section 138 N.I Act in plaint no. 810 of 2020, Police StationAminabad, District- Lucknow, in the interest of justice. (Contained as Annexure No. 01 & 02 to this petition)."

¶12

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press this application on merits. He has further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceedings and will appear before the trial court within three weeks from today. It is submitted that there is chance of mediation between the parties.

¶13

A perusal of the impugned complaint and the summoning order does

¶14

A482 No. 9645 of 2025

¶15

¶16

not disclose any such manifest illegality or jurisdictional error or an abuse of process of Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act where an offence of dishonour of a cheque is involved. This Court, therefore, declines to quash the proceedings.

¶17

It will, however, be open to the applicant to appear before the Court concerned and pray for compounding the case in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663 . In case, the applicant appears before the Court concerned within three weeks from today through counsel and moves an application seeking to compound the offences, the Court concerned shall dispose of the application in accordance with law within three months bearing in mind the relevant directions in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) after providing opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. If the orders made do not work to bring proceedings to an end in accordance with law, the trial shall proceed and brought to its logical conclusion, where the applicant will have all defence open to her under the law.

¶18

For a period of three months, no coercive steps shall be adopted against the applicant in respect of the aforesaid case.

¶19

The application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

¶20

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶21

November 15, 2025 ML/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Saalim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Saalim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ran Vijay Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. and Another

Uttam Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Uttam Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anoter

Smt. Rachana Gautam and Another vs Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. and 7 Others

Rajmani @ Rajmani Ram ( Ex Serviceman Indian Army) vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another