Allahabad High Court
Virendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2447 of 2022 Petitioner :- Virendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Faiz Ahmad,Mohd. Saleem Khan,Sheel Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balbir Yadav,Sonu Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Hohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Balbir Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party-2.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 15.9.2021, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Complaint Case No. 168 of 2017 (Ravinidra Kumar Gaud Vs. Virendra Pratap Singh), under section 138 N.I. Act, whereby concerned Magistrate closed the evidence of accused/petitioner and order dated 25.2.2022, passed by Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2021 (Virendra Pratap Singh Vs. U.P. State and another), whereby aforementioned criminal revision arising out of order dated 15.9.2021 has been dismissed.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that complaint case giving rise to present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is of the year 2017. Admittedly proceedings of complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act are summary in nature and fall in the category of summary trial. Trial commences with the statement of accused.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party-2 further submits that inspite of opportunity having been granted to accused/petitioner to deposit the disputed amount in the year 2020, no steps were taken by accused/petitioner to comply with the earlier order passed by Court below. As such applicants wants to delay the proceedings.
From the perusal of order sheet which has been brought on record goes to show that accused/petitioner has been playing hot and cold in the proceedings of aforesaid complaint case. He has then referred to the provisions contained in Section 142 (ii) N.I. Act wherein it has been preferred that proceedings under section 138 N.I. Act should be completed within a period of six months. On account of non compliance of earlier order, petitioner does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.
In view of above, petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2022 Arshad