Dismissed¶18

Vikash Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Amethi and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2025NA529/22/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 483 Cr.P.C. application for early disposal of Section 138 N.I. Act complaint case No.8368 of 2025 (Vikash Kumar Verma v. Jitendra Kumar, Sultanpur) dismissed; six-month trial-conclusion limit under Section 143(2) held directory, not mandatory; complaint registered only on 24.4.2025, summons not issued; huge pendency of Section 138 matters before Judicial Magistrates; order dated 16.5.2025 recalled on sufficient cause; amount involved Rs.2,10,000/-; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Alok Mathur, J., order dated 23.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recall application allowed: order dated 16.5.2025 recalled and petition restored to its original number; the substantive application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. for early disposal of the complaint case stands dismissed. ¶18

Vikash Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct early/expeditious disposal of complaint case No.8368 of 2025 (a Section 138 N.I. Act trial) pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.) First/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, as sought by the applicant under Section 483 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

No ground for interference is made out: the complaint case had just been registered and even summons had not been issued; further, considering the huge pendency in the courts of Judicial Magistrates dealing with Section 138 N.I. Act matters, no direction for expediting the trial can be issued at this stage.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Cause shown is sufficient; the C.M. Application No.2 of 2025 is allowed, order dated 16.5.2025 is recalled and the petition is restored to its original number.

¶9

Key takeaways

The time limit for conclusion of a trial under Section 143(2) is directory and not mandatory.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Alok Mathur, J. — Cause shown held sufficient; C.M. Application No.2 of 2025 allowed and order dated 16.5.2025 recalled, with the petition restored to its original number. On merits, the application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking early disposal of complaint case No.8368 of 2025 (Vikash Kumar Verma v. Jitendra Kumar), pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.) First/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, arising out of a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint concerning Rs.2,10,000/- advanced in cash and a dishonoured cheque, was dismissed. The Court held that the six-month period for conclusion of trial under Section 143(2) is directory and not mandatory; that the complaint had only just been registered vide order dated 24.4.2025 with summons yet to be issued, so no ground for interference was made out; and that, given the huge pendency of Section 138 matters before Judicial Magistrates, no direction for expediting the trial could be issued at that stage. Order dated 23.5.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30999

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 22 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Vikash Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Amethi And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

C. M. Application No.2 of 2025 for recall of order dated 16.5.2025.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

¶8

The cause shown is sufficient. Application is allowed.

¶9

Order dated 16.5.2025 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number.

¶10

Order on memo

¶11

Heard Ms. Arti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

¶12

Present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed for early disposal of complaint case No.8368 of 2025 (Vikash Kumar Verma Vs. Jitendra Kumar) pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) First/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur.

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that a complaint was lodged by the applicant stating that he had advanced an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to opposite party No.2 in cash but the same was never returned by opposite party No.2. It is further stated that opposite party No.2 had given a cheque to the applicant of the aforesaid amount which was dishonored and consequently legal notice was sent to opposite party No.2 and despite expiry of the given period when the payment was not made the applicant had filed aforesaid compliant under Section 138 of N.I. Act cognizance of which was taken by the trial court.

¶14

A perusal of the order sheet indicates that the complaint case

¶15

has just been registered vide order dated 24.4.2025 and next date fixed in the case is 24.5.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances the present application has been moved for expeditious disposal of the complaint filed by the applicant which is too early.

¶16

In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has submitted hat as per Section 143 (2) it has been provided that trial in this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶17

From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that undoubtedly, the trial has to be conducted expeditiously and endeavor should be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. Aforesaid provision clearly indicates that time limit for conclusion of a trial is clearly directory and not mandatory. Apart from the above, considering the aforesaid provision, we find that the aforesaid complaint case has just been registered in which even summons have not been issued, no ground for interference is made out. Also, considering that there is huge pendency in the courts of Judicial Magistrates who have been dealing with the matters under Section 138 of N. I. Act, no direction for expediting the trial can be issued at this stage.

¶18

Accordingly, the application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 RKM.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikash Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Collector Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Acharya Rasik Bihari vs Rameshwarachareya and 2 Others

Juvenile X Thru. Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

X , Juvenile Delinquent in Case Crime No. 117/2024 ,Thru. His Father Xxx Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Raghav Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another