Allahabad High Court
Smt Ashoka Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:728 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27681 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Ashoka Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri A.S. Prajapati, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by Additional District Judge-09, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2023 (Smt. Ashoka Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Complaint Case No.1819 of 2011 [Old No.327/2011], under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra.
3. Contention of learned counsel for applicant is that application of applicant raising objection against filing of Vakalatnama of Satish Chandra Agrawal without authority was rejected by the court below by order dated 28.05.2024. Against that order, appeal was also rejected. He has further submitted that both the orders are erroneous because Satish Chandra Agrawal was not drawer of the cheque, therefore, Vakalatnama cannot be filed by him in place of drawer of the cheque, who was Kailash Nath Agrawal.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that after death of Kailash Nath Agrawal, his son Satish Chandra Agrawal was permitted to pursue the complaint by concerned court, therefore, he has right to file Vakalatnama to represent him through counsel.
5. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the drawer of cheque was Kailash Nath Agrawal who was impleaded as party in the complaint case and during the pendency of complaint Kailash Nath Agrawal has died and his son Satish Chandra Agrawal was permitted by concerned court to pursue the complaint. That order was not challenged by the applicant before any higher court, therefore, present application raising objection on the ground that Satish Chandra Agrawal has no authority to file Vakalatnama to represent him is misconceived.
6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Atul