Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29451 of 2018 Applicant :- Musarrat Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1389 of 2017 (Hemant Kumar vs. Musarrat Khan), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, Agra.
From the record, it appears that the applicant gave a cheque bearing No. 00016 dated 5th July, 2017 valued at Rs. 5.5 lacs to the opposite party no.2. However, the said cheque was not encashed on account of insufficient funds in the account of the applicant. Consequently, the opposite party no.2, as per the mandate of Section 138 (b) N.I. Act, sent a legal notice dated 20th July, 2017 to the applicant asking the applicant to pay the amount payable under the disputed cheque. However, inspite of the said notice, the amount payable under the disputed cheque was not paid by the applicant to the opposite party no.2. Consequently, the opposite party no.2 filed the above mentioned complaint case.
The applicant was summoned by the court below in the above mentioned complaint case vide summoning order dated 4th September, 2017. However, for the reasons best known to the applicant, he chose not to appear before the court below. As a result, Bailable-Warrant was issued against the applicant vide order dated 20th December, 2017. Inspite of the above, the applicant did not appear before the court below. Ultimately, Non- Bailable Warrant was issued against the applicant vide order dated 30th January, 2018.
Thus, prior to the filing of the present application on 23rd August, 2018, Non-Bailable Warrant so issued against the applicant has been operating for more than five and half months. Inspite of the expiry of the aforesaid period, the applicant has chosen not to appear before the court below and seek recall of the Non-Bailable Warrant under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. This shows a total disrespect to the process of the Court.
In view of the facts as noted herein above, no case for interference is made out.
Consequently, the present application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Sushil/-