Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1843 (ALL)

Navendu Ghose v. State of U. P.

2014-06-10

OM PRAKASH VII

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P. C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer that the Judicial Magistrate Room No.2, Allahabad, before whom Complaint Case No.534 of 2008 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is pending, be directed to dispose of the discharge application taking into consideration the affidavit and statement of opposite party no.2 for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the present application. 3. On a perusal of the record, it appears that opposite party no. 2 in the present application had filed Application under Section 482 No. 9314 of 2014 before this Court and by the order dated 1.4.2014 this Court had directed to consider and decide the discharge application and further directed that till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the said application. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case is pending before the court below at the stage of defence evidence and argument and concealing the material fact, the accused had filed the aforesaid application no. 9314 of 2014 and obtained an order in his favour. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that no relief can be granted to the applicant in the present application because in the prayer clause itself the applicant has made prayer for a direction to dispose off the discharge application. 6. It is evident from the record that in compliance of the order dated 1.4.2014 passed in the aforesaid application no. 9314 of 2014, the accused has moved discharge application, which is pending for disposal. The documents sought to be considered at the time of disposal of discharge application may be referred by the applicant at that time. In the present application the applicant himself has made prayer for a direction to dispose off the discharge application. Thus, the court is not inclined to give any direction in this respect. The application is misconceived, and is liable to be dismissed. The application is accordingly dismissed.