Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23253 of 2022 Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava,Arjit Srivastava,Usha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tanmay Agarwal, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant prays for quashing the order dated 7.5.2022 passed by trial court as well as to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 5004 of 2015, under Section 138 N.I. Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing agony of the criminal trial since the year 1999 and without any reasonable cause, he has been made accused and initially even the complainant was not appearing before the court concerned and therefore, trial is pending for last about more than 20 years and therefore, proceeding pending under Section 138 N.I. Act should be quashed. He further submitted that even the statement of applicant which was recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is also illegal and therefore, that may also be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that admittedly the trial of the case is pending since 1999 and proceeding of the case is pending for last about two decades but merely on that ground, proceeding cannot be quashed and further on 7.5.2022 statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and therefore, there is no illegality as applicant is an accused and it is a summary trial under Section 138 N.I. Act, therefore, as per the procedure his statement was recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and therefore, instant application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
Admittedly, trial of the case which relates to section 138 N.I. Act is pending since 1999 although from the prayer clause, it appears that complaint case has been numbered as 5004 of 2015, therefore, it appears that in present matter, the new number was allotted and in fact, indisputably the trial of the case, is pending since year 1999. Be that as it may, on the ground of long delay of pendency of the trial, proceeding pending against the applicant, cannot be quashed. The next prayer that the order dated 7.5.2022 passed by the trial court should be quashed also appears to be misconceived as on 7.5.2022, there is no order was passed by the court below but on 7.5.2022, the statement of applicant who is accused in the present matter was recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and therefore, question of quashing the statement recorded under section 251 Cr.P.C. does not arise, therefore, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, as the present case relates to section 138 N.I. Act and trial of the same is pending since the year 1999 i.e. for last more than two decades and as per the provisions of Section 143 (3) N.I. Act, proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act should be concluded preferably within six months from the date of institution of the case, therefore, in view of the matter it is directed that trial court shall decide the trial of the case within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022 Ankita