# M/S Pashupati Alloys, Meerut v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 645
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-06-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 20468 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-pashupati-alloys-meerut-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49384
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Section 138,143 to 147 -
dishonour of cheque - expeditious hearing
of criminal complaints filed under the
Negotiable Instruments Act. - Courts
should expedite case resolution to meet
legitimate expectations, as delayed relief
may diminish the impact and leave
litigants
feeling
exhausted
and
disillusioned with the legal system.(Para -
6, 15, 16)

(B) The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Section 143(3) - Every trial under this
section
shall
be
conducted
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
and
an
endeavour shall be made to conclude the
trial within six months from the date of
filing of the complaint, Section 143(A) -
Court trying an offence under section 138
has the authority to order the drawer of
the cheque to pay interim compensation
to the complainant.(Para -7)

(C) The Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 142 - law established by the
Supreme Court of India is indeed binding
upon all subordinate courts in the country
- empowers the Supreme Court to deliver
judgments and orders that are necessary
for
complete
justice
-
maintaining
consistency, uniformity, and the rule of
law within the judicial system - significant
aspects of their lives, rights, and property
- impact on their well-being, livelihood,
and sense of security. (Para -12)

Case has been pending since 13.8.2020 - with
no effective hearing conducted - trial court
issued bailable warrants five times and nonbailable warrants 11 times - imposing costs of
Rs. 300, Rs. 500, and Rs. 1000 on accused -
applicant aggrieved by lack of an effective
hearing - filed an instant application for early or
time-bound disposal of the case.(Para - 4,5)

HELD:-Trial court failed to understand the
purpose and objective of the Act, 2002. Trial
court is ordered to promptly dispose of the
pending criminal complaint before the ACJM, in
accordance with the Supreme Court's directions
and provisions of the Act, with the hope that the
trial court understands the implications of noncompliance. (Para - 17, 18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

11 All. M/S Pashupati Alloys, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
645

20. The application is allowed
accordingly.

21. Consequently, the District Judge,
Gonda is hereby directed to transmit back
the Criminal Case No. 11874 of 2023
arising out of Case Crime No. 0516 of 2022
of the Special Court designated by the State
Government as the third senior most Court
of Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Lucknow, who in fact is having the
territorial jurisdiction by virtue of the
notification dated 20.04.2021, which was
issued in consonance with the provision of
Section 22 of the Act, 2008, within a period
of three weeks from the date of this order.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 645
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.06.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 20468 of 2023

M/S Pashupati Alloys, Meerut ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pavan Kishore, Sri Manish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Section 138,143 to 147 -
dishonour of cheque - expeditious hearing
of criminal complaints filed under the
Negotiable Instruments Act. - Courts
should expedite case resolution to meet
legitimate expectations, as delayed relief
may diminish the impact and leave
litigants
feeling
exhausted
and
disillusioned with the legal system.(Para -
6, 15, 16)

(B) The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Section 143(3) - Every trial under this
section
shall
be
conducted
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
and
an
endeavour shall be made to conclude the
trial within six months from the date of
filing of the complaint, Section 143(A) -
Court trying an offence under section 138
has the authority to order the drawer of
the cheque to pay interim compensation
to the complainant.(Para -7)

(C) The Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 142 - law established by the
Supreme Court of India is indeed binding
upon all subordinate courts in the country
- empowers the Supreme Court to deliver
judgments and orders that are necessary
for
complete
justice
-
maintaining
consistency, uniformity, and the rule of
law within the judicial system - significant
aspects of their lives, rights, and property
- impact on their well-being, livelihood,
and sense of security. (Para -12)

Case has been pending since 13.8.2020 - with
no effective hearing conducted - trial court
issued bailable warrants five times and nonbailable warrants 11 times - imposing costs of
Rs. 300, Rs. 500, and Rs. 1000 on accused -
applicant aggrieved by lack of an effective
hearing - filed an instant application for early or
time-bound disposal of the case.(Para - 4,5)

HELD:-Trial court failed to understand the
purpose and objective of the Act, 2002. Trial
court is ordered to promptly dispose of the
pending criminal complaint before the ACJM, in
accordance with the Supreme Court's directions
and provisions of the Act, with the hope that the
trial court understands the implications of noncompliance. (Para - 17, 18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. I.B.A. & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. , (2014) 5 SCC
590
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. Vs Kanchan
Mehta , (2018) 1 SCC 560

3. Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section
138 of N.I. Act, 1881 , (2021 SCC Online SC
354)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The applicant has preferred the
instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious
disposal of the Complaint Case No.4863 of
2022 titled M/s Pashupati Alloys Vs. Sunil
Garg, filed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending
trial before the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIth, Meerut.

3. The facts leading to filing this
instant application are succinct as follows:

(i). M/s Pashupati Alloys filed a
criminal complaint against Mr. Sunil Garg,
owner of M/s Mahaveer Ispat Udyog,
regarding dishonour of the cheque dated
30.4.2020 amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-.

(ii). The criminal complaint was
filed on 13.8.2020 before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth,
Meerut.

(iii). Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Meerut summoned
the accused- Sunil Garg, vide order dated
16.3.2021 and on presentation of bail bond,
granted bail vide order dated 3.12.2021.

(iv). Learned trial court recorded
the statement under Section 254 Cr.P.C.
and listed the case for the recording of
evidence.

4. Since 13.8.2020, the case has been
pending trial before the learned trial court,
and despite being listed 33 times, no
effective hearing was conducted. Out of
these 33 instances, the trial court issued
bailable warrants against the accused five
times
on
26.8.2021,
13.10.2021,
29.10.2021, 10.11.2021, and 26.11.2021.
Additionally, non-bailable warrants were
issued a total of 11 times on 24.5.2022,
24.6.2022,
1.12.2022,
12.12.2022,
5.1.2023, 17.1.2023, 2.2.2023, 17.2.2023,
2.3.2023, 28.3.2023, and 11.4.2023. During
this period, the trial court also imposed
costs of Rs. 300, Rs. 500, and Rs. 1000 on
the accused on 20.4.2022, 7.7.2022, and
20.9.2022, respectively.

5. The applicant, aggrieved by the fact
that the trial court conducted no effective
hearing,
has
preferred
the
instant
application seeking early or time-bound
disposal of the case.

6. Before I advert to the relief sought
by the applicant, it is prudent to refer
to some of the judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding
the expeditious hearing of criminal
complaints filed under the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Additionally, before
seeking
the
assistance
of
the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court for the expeditious and
early disposal of cases related to the
dishonour of cheques, it is appropriate
to consider sections 143 to 147 and
138 of the Act1.

7. The relevant portion of section
143(3) is extracted herein below:
11 All. M/S Pashupati Alloys, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647

"Every trial under this section
shall be conducted as expeditiously as
possible, and an endeavour shall be made
to conclude the trial within six months from
the date of filing of the complaint."

8. Section 143(A) states that the Court
trying an offence under section 138 has the
authority to order the drawer of the cheque
to pay interim compensation to the
complainant. The interim compensation
must be paid within 60 days from the date
of the order under sub-section (1) of section
143(A). However, if the Court deems it
necessary, it may extend this period by up
to 30 days upon a sufficient cause shown
by the drawer of the cheque.

9. Upon a closer examination of
section 145 of the Act1, it becomes evident
that both sub-sections 1 and 2 are
enforceable within the bounds of the legal
procedure and empower the Court to record
evidence on the affidavit. Similarly, section
146 allows the Court to presume the fact of
dishonour of cheques based on the
presentation of the bank slip or evidence of
an error on the slip. No official remark
denoting
that
the
cheque
has
been
dishonoured can be considered valid until
and unless such a fact is disproved.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Indian Bank Association and others Vs.
Union of India and others2, observed that
the Amendment Act, 2002 has to be given
effect to it in letter and spirit and hence
issued the following directions:-

"23. Many of the directions given
by the various High Courts, in our view,
are worthy of emulation by the Criminal
Courts all over the country dealing with
cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, for which the following
directions are being given:

23.1
The
Metropolitan
Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM),
on the day when the complaint under
Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall
scrutinize the complaint and, if the
complaint is accompanied by the affidavit,
and the affidavit and the documents, if any,
are found to be in order, take cognizance
and direct issuance of summons.

23.2 The MM/JM should adopt a
pragmatic and realistic approach while
issuing summons. Summons must be
properly addressed and sent by post as well
as by e-mail address got from the
complainant. The Court, in appropriate
cases, may take the assistance of the police
or the nearby Court to serve notice on the
accused. For notice of appearance, a short
date be fixed. If the summons is received
back un-served, immediate follow- up
action be taken.

23.3 The Court may indicate in
the summons that if the accused makes an
application for compounding of offences at
the first hearing of the case and, if such an
application is made, the Court may pass
appropriate orders at the earliest.

23.4 The Court should direct the
accused, when he appears to furnish a bail
bond, to ensure his appearance during trial
and ask him to take notice under Section
251 Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea
of defence and fix the case for defence
evidence, unless an application is made by
the accused under Section 145(2) for re-
calling a witness for cross-examination.

23.5 The Court concerned must
ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination and re-examination of the
complainant must be conducted within
three months of assigning the case. The
Court has option of accepting affidavits of
the witnesses, instead of examining them in
the Court. The witnesses to the complaint
and accused must be available for crossexamination as and when there is direction
to this effect by the Court."

11. The Supreme Court has also
issued various directions in Meters and
Instruments (P) Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Mehta3
and the same has been clarified by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under
Section 138 of N.I. Act, 18814 vide order
dated 16.04.2021 and issued fresh direction
with respect to the conduct of trials of
complaints under section 138 of the Act1.
Uttar Pradesh has also established, on a
pilot basis, five Special Courts in the
districts with the highest pendency of cases.
Thereby
five
Special
Courts
were
established in Lucknow, Agra, Kanpur,
Gautambudh Nagar, and Ghaziabad, one in
each district. The guidelines were also
issued for covering the pilot study vide
order dated 19.05.2022 in Re: Expeditious
Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I.
Act, 1881 (supra), the case is still seized
with the Supreme Court.

12. The law established by the
Supreme Court of India is indeed binding
upon all subordinate courts in the country.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India
empowers the Supreme Court to deliver
judgments and orders that are necessary for
complete justice. It also states that these
judgments and orders shall be enforceable
throughout the territory of India. As a
result, any decision or law propounded by
the Supreme Court becomes a binding
precedent for all lower or subordinate
courts in the country, and they are required
to follow and apply the same while
deciding similar cases. This principle of
law is crucial for maintaining consistency,
uniformity, and the rule of law within the
judicial system.

13. Indeed, it is a matter of record that
the Supreme Court has consistently issued
numerous directions in various cases to
ensure the early and speedy disposal of
complaints filed under Section 138 of the
Act1. However, the desired impact is often
not seen on the ground.

14. Litigants approach the courts with
grievances, seeking resolution and redress
for their issues. Their cases are not just
legal matters; they represent significant
aspects of their lives, rights, and property.
The outcome of the case can have a
profound impact on their well-being,
livelihood, and sense of security.

15. Addressing litigants' concerns
and understanding the profound impact
that legal proceedings have on their
lives can foster public confidence in the
judiciary and reinforce the belief that
the courts are indeed the guardians of
justice and protection. It is essential for
the courts to embrace measures to
expedite the resolution of cases and
fulfil the legitimate expectations of
those who approach the legal system in
search of justice.

16. The relief, though appreciated,
may no longer hold the same significance
or impact as it would have if provided
earlier or more expeditiously. The delay in
obtaining justice can diminish the litigant's
sense of satisfaction and may leave them
feeling exhausted and disillusioned with the
legal
system.
11 All. Vishwanath Singh Rathaur & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
649

17. It is indeed regrettable that the
learned trial court failed to grasp the
objective of the enactment of the Act, 2002,
along with its purpose.

18. In terms of the directions issued
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
as
mentioned above and considering the
provisions of the Act1, it is hereby ordered,
with the hope and expectation, that the trial
court comprehends the implications of noncompliance with the directions issued by
the Supreme Court, to expeditiously
dispose of the pending criminal complaint
before the Court of the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIth, Meerut.
This
petition
is
thus
disposed
of
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 649
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 24169 of 2023

Vishwanath Singh Rathaur & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mukesh Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 323,
342, 379, 504 & 506-Challenge to-entire criminal
proceedings- the applicants were complying with the
order issued by the court below, for which a
complaint came to be filed and was registered as a
complaint case under the aforesaid sections;
mandatory
provisions
of
sanction
by
the
competent authority under Section 197 CrPC could
not have been ignored by the learned Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Varanasi
before
taking
cognizance and summoning the applicants as
accused. In the present case, it is not in dispute
that the applicants, along with other police
personnel were complying the order of the court
below, as such, it cannot be said that the police
officers were not acting in discharge of their official
duty. Even if the police official had exceeded to
some extent their authority in discharge of their
official/public duty, then also sanction would be
required for their prosecution. In absence of
sanction, the criminal proceedings against the
applicants would be non-est and void and the
same are liable to be quashed. (Para 1 to 20)

B. The intention behind protection under Section
197 CrPC is to protect the public servant from
being unnecessarily harassed by launching a
criminal proceeding against him for an offence
allegedly
committed
while
performing
official/public duty. If the offence is in respect of
an act done or purported to be done in discharge
of official/public duty, the public servant has
protection under Section 197 CrPC. This protection
under Section 197 CrPC has salutary object to
prevent harassment of public servants and protect
them for mala fide and motivated criminal
prosecution. However, if the competent authority
finds that the act of commission/omission done by
public servant was not in performance of his public
duty, he would sanction prosecution of the public
servant.(Para 16,17)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. D. Devraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC
695

2. Matajog Dobey Vs H.C. Bhari (1955) SC 44 :
(1955) 2 SCR 925 : 1956 Cri LJ 140

3. Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava Vs N.P. Misra
(1970) 2 SCC 56 : (1971) 1 SCR 317

4. Pukhraj Vs St. of Raj. & anr. (1973) 2 SCC
701