Dismissed

Srikrishna Agarwal v. Lundbeck India Pvt.

Orissa HC24 Jul 2017CRLMC/247/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a Section 138 NI Act cognizance order, arguing cheque was paid and complainant did not appear. The Single Judge held ingredients of Section 138 were made out and dismissed the quash request, directing the trial court to proceed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. due to complainant's absence.

What did the court decide?

Order to quash dismissed. Impe arabled for trial. Complainant's mode of conviction under Section 256 Cr.P.C. instructed.

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

¶1

 CRLMC No.247 of 2010

¶2

 10. 24.07.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
 The petitioner has filed this CRLMC under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. w
ith a prayer to quash the order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar i
n I.C.C. No.1748 of 2009 taking cognizance against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
 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.

¶3

 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.
 With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed of.
 Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
 Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶4

 S.Pujahari, J.

¶5

BJ

¶6

Srikrishna Agarwal v. Lundbeck India Pvt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikrishna Agarwal 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 Agrawal Vs Lundbeck India Pvt.

Madan M.Simulu Vs State

Dr.Babru Bahan Panda Vs State