1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Saurabh Kumar Pandey And Another vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35221 of 2017 Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Jai Raj Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 01.07.2017, NBW order 31.08.2017 dated in Complaint Case No. 28945 of 2017 (Smt. Anita Tiwari Vs. Proplarity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/FTC, Kanpur Nagar.
3. While learned counsel for the applicants has advanced submission to challenge the complaint and the summoning under Section 138 N.I. Act, at present, the issuance of cheque is not disputed. Also, there is no technical defect shown either in the issuance of notice or lodging of the complaint. The other submission advanced with respect to the liability being disputed are factual in nature and such as may not be gone into in the present proceedings. The offence being one under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is largely a technical offence, its ingredients are prima facie made out.
4. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is declined.
5. However, if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
6. For a period of 30 days from today, the non- bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that the amount that is lying deposited with the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court, may be returned to the applicant. However, in the interest of justice, it would be proper that the balance amount be remitted to the learned court below, which shall be retained in an interest bearing term deposit with a nationalised bank, which shall abide by final orders to be passed in complaint case, which exercise may be concluded as expeditiously as possibly, strictly in accordance with law, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment to either party.
8. The present application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Abhilash
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Saurabh Kumar Pandey And Another vs State Of U P And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Saumitra Dayal Singh
  • Jai Raj Singh Tomar Kavita Tomar