Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2019 (ALL)

Jitendra Gupta v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-08-29

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2011
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J. : Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.2. The instant petition has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the learned Magistrate (Junior Division) Ist, Shahjahanpur to conclude the trial of Case No. 670 of 2010 (Jitendra Gupta Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra and another) under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint was filed by the applicant against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 17.2.2009, in respect of business transactions had issued a cheque of Rs. ten lacs as the opposite party no. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. ten lacs and he had given a cheque of Rs. 5,50,000/- only which was dishonoured by the bank when it was presented for encashment. The applicant has no alternative but to file a petition under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 I.P.C. Thereafter they were summoned by the court below. The opposite party no.2 approached this court by moving a 482 Petition No. 23931 of 2009 and this court by order dated 8.10.2009 had directed that a complaint under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be filed under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Chapter XVII has been inserted for dealing the offence under the said Chapter alone and therefore the opposite party no. 2 was directed to be tried under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in complaint Case No. 1192 of 2009. Thereafter while proceeding under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act the court below has issued non bailable warrant against the opposite party no.2. The matter is pending since long and the applicant has suffered huge financial loss at the hands of the opposite party nos.2 and 3, therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the case against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed by the applicant be decided expeditiously.4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to this prayer of the applicant.5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made at the bar from the? perusal of the order sheet of the case the personal appearance of the opposite party no.3 was exempted who is appearing through counsel. But the applicant no. 2 is not appearing hence non bailable warrant has been issued. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made at the bar from the? perusal of the order sheet of the case the personal appearance of the opposite party no.3 was exempted who is appearing through counsel. But the applicant no. 2 is not appearing hence non bailable warrant has been issued. Since the summoning order was passed on 7.3.2009 and the trial is pending against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 since long which will entail serious consequences. In the interest of all concerned the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be determined as early as possible therefore court below is directed to decide the Case No. 670 of 2010 expeditiously in accordance with law, if possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.6. With the above directions the petition is disposed of finally.__________