Raghvendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111933

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21376 of 2025 Applicant :- Raghvendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri M.L. Jain (AoR No.A/M 0664/2012) holding brief of Sri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

¶5

This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 05.08.2019 and order dated 17.05.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1961 of 2019 ( Bhanu Pratap Vs M/S Green Land and another ) under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 on 30.03.2019 under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that that with respect to discharge of a liability, a cheque bearing number "011134" dated 30.12.2019 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- stood drawn by the applicant herein, which on presentation in the bank, came to be dishonoured on 01.02.2019, a statutory demand notice was issued on 20.02.2019, followed by a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 30.03.2019 and the applicant came to be summoned by the court below under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 05.08.2019. Thereafter, an application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act came to be preferred by O.P. No.2 for grant of interim compensation to the tune of 20% on 26.10.2023, which was objected by the applicant on 02.04.2023 and the same came to be allowed on 17.05.2024.

¶7

Questioning the same, the applicants have filed the present application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the court below has erred in law in according interim compensation to the tune of 20% merely on asking on the ground that the delay has been caused on account of the applicant, particularly when summoning order was passed on 05.08.2019 and the applicant had put his appearance on 03.03.2021 and the statement of the applicant-accused was made on 17.04.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid order cannot be said to be

¶9

in accordance with law, as the same is not as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another : (2024) 3 S.C.R. 438 . He submits that neither the prima facie case of the complainant nor of the accused has been considered, nor there has been any consideration of the financial distress of the applicant and even prima facie case has also not been considered with respect to grant of compensation and once compensation is to be accorded, then the quantum has also not been seen. Submission is that none of the said criteria had been adhered to, thus, the order dated 17.05.2024 be set aside and the matter be remitted back.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. submits that once the cheque stood drawn and have been dishnoured, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would be there, but he could not dispute the fact that while according compensation under Section 143-A, considerations, as mandated by the Hon'ble Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra) have to be adhered to, the said exercise is lacking.

¶11

Since the parameter so enumerated in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) has not been considered and the exercise is lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the order dated 17.05.2019.

¶12

Accordingly, the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Court of Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. Kasganj in Complaint Case No.2173 of 2024, " Bhanu Pratap vs. M/s Geen Land Fruit and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and others under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Kasganj District Kasganj is set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order in light of the judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). For facilitation in speedy disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 18.07.2025. The court below shall take endeavour to pass orders strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment particularly in view of the fact that learned counsel for the applicant, as per the instructions of his client, has disclosed that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. If adjournment is granted, same shall not be more than five days in a stretch.

¶13

With the above observation, the application stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 N.S.Rathour

¶15

(Vikas Budhwar, J)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra 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

Similar cases

Kamlesh Vishwakarma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashu Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaiveer Singh Alias Jaibeer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Habib vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another