Dismissed

Srikrishna Agrawal v. Lundbeck India Pvt.

Orissa HC24 Jul 2017CRLMC/246/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a CRLMC seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance under the NI Act. Although prima facie satisfaction of Section 138 NI Act was found, the court directed the trial court to proceed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. due to the complainant's absence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the order taking cognizance was denied; petition disposed of with direction to trial court to proceed under Section 256 Cr.P.C.

Srikrishna Agrawal Vs Lundbeck India Pvt. — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

 CRLMC No.246 of 2010

¶2

 09. 24.07.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

 The petitioner has filed this CRLMC under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. w
ith a prayer to quash the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar i
n I.C.C. No.1898 of 2009 taking cognizance against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶4

 It appears that the petitioner has made a prayer to quash the order ta
king cognizance in the aforesaid case on the ground that though the petitioner has already pai
d the cheques amount which were bounced, but the complainant is not turning up to withdraw the
 complaint. It also fortifies from the fact that the complainant is not appearing in this case
 in spite of issuance of notice. Therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance against the p
etitioner be quashed.

¶5

 Considering the fact that the cheque drawn in favour of the complainan
t was dishonoured and in spite of the chance given to pay the amount within the period stipula
te, the same having not been paid by the drawer, ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is
 prima facie made out, hence, the contention advanced is no ground to quash the order taking c
ognizance. However, in this case since the complainant is not appearing in the court and it is
 stated that the same is also the conduct of the complainant in the trial court, it is observe
d that if the complainant does not appear in the trial court, the court concerned may proceed
in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.

¶6

 With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed of.

¶7

 Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶8

 Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶9

 ..
 S.Pujahari, J.

¶10

BJ

¶11

Srikrishna Agrawal v. Lundbeck India Pvt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikrishna Agrawal v. Lundbeck India Pvt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhusudan Sahu Vs State

Sagar Maharana Vs State of Orissa

Hindustan Coca-Cola Vs State

Srikrishna Agarwal Vs Lundbeck India Pvt.

Madan M.Simulu Vs State

Dr.Babru Bahan Panda Vs State