Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2361 (ALL)

Rajkumar Agrawal v. State of U. P. and Another

2013-09-20

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA

body2013
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to the court below to decide the case no. 809 of 2010, under section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra pending before the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that he filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 on 27.07.2010, in which after inquiry summons were issued to the accused persons (O.P. Nos. 2 and 3) on 09.11.2010. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed application u/s 482 No. 12594 of 2011 for quashing the proceedings of complaint case in which the Court has directed them to file application for the purpose of dropping the case within 30 days. They filed application for dropping the proceeding on 17.05.2011 but the same has not been decided till today by the learned Magistrate. 4. On perusal of the order sheet of the trial court, it transpires that Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra took cognizance on the complaint of the applicant under section 138 of N.I. Act against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 on 09.11.2010. They approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 809/2010, under section 138 of N.I. Act, which was disposed of with a direction to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 to file appropriate application before the court concerned and till the disposal of that application, no coercive steps would be taken against them. The applicant has filed the order sheet up to 27.07.2013. This order sheet further shows that only complainant is appearing in the case and no one from the side of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 is appearing in the court. This is sheer misuse of the order passed by this Court. In the order dated 20.01.2011, it was directed that application filed by accused (O.P. Nos. 2 and 3) shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. More than two years have gone the learned Special C.J.M. has not cared to follow the directions of this Court. 5. This is sheer misuse of the order passed by this Court. In the order dated 20.01.2011, it was directed that application filed by accused (O.P. Nos. 2 and 3) shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. More than two years have gone the learned Special C.J.M. has not cared to follow the directions of this Court. 5. In view of above, it is directed that learned Magistrate would fix a date for hearing of the objections dated 17.05.2011 filed on behalf of accused persons and inform their counsel about the date fixed. The application of he accused persons aforesaid be disposed of within three months from the date of certified copy of this order is filed by the applicant before the court concerned. 6. With these observations, application is disposed of. _____________