# Ram Dhari Pal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 753
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 35789 of 2023
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-dhari-pal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50980
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-Section
482-
The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Sections 143(2) & 143(3) - Direction for
Expeditious Trial - The applicant sought a
direction to the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)
Ist/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, to conclude the
trial of Complaint Case No. 19412 of 2022 under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Held, the court directed the trial court to
conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably
within six months, in accordance with statutory
provisions and Supreme Court directives. (Paras
2, 7, 8)

B. Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of N.I. Act -
Mandatory Timelines - The trial for an
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act must
be conducted on a day-to-day basis and
concluded within six months from the filing of
the complaint, as mandated by Sections 143(2)
and 143(3) - Held, the court reinforced the
statutory requirement for expeditious disposal.
(Paras 3, 7)

C. Supreme Court Directives for Speedy
Disposal - The Supreme Court in Indian Bank
Association Vs U.O.I. and In Re: Expeditious
Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act issued
guidelines for swift disposal of Section 138
cases,
including
scrutiny
of
complaints,
pragmatic
summons
issuance,
and
timely
examination
of
witnesses
-
Held,
these
directives
must
be
followed
to
ensure
expeditious trials. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

D. Judicial Mandate for Efficiency - The
court emphasized that proceedings under the
N.I. Act should avoid unnecessary technicalities
and be concluded promptly - Held, the trial
court was directed to adhere to the Apex Court's
guidelines and statutory provisions for a speedy
trial. (Paras 6, 7)

Application Disposed of .

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Ram Dhari Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
753
(2024) 4 ILRA 753
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 35789 of 2023

Ram Dhari Pal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shibli Naseem

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-Section
482-
The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Sections 143(2) & 143(3) - Direction for
Expeditious Trial - The applicant sought a
direction to the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)
Ist/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, to conclude the
trial of Complaint Case No. 19412 of 2022 under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Held, the court directed the trial court to
conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably
within six months, in accordance with statutory
provisions and Supreme Court directives. (Paras
2, 7, 8)

B. Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of N.I. Act -
Mandatory Timelines - The trial for an
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act must
be conducted on a day-to-day basis and
concluded within six months from the filing of
the complaint, as mandated by Sections 143(2)
and 143(3) - Held, the court reinforced the
statutory requirement for expeditious disposal.
(Paras 3, 7)

C. Supreme Court Directives for Speedy
Disposal - The Supreme Court in Indian Bank
Association Vs U.O.I. and In Re: Expeditious
Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act issued
guidelines for swift disposal of Section 138
cases,
including
scrutiny
of
complaints,
pragmatic
summons
issuance,
and
timely
examination
of
witnesses
-
Held,
these
directives
must
be
followed
to
ensure
expeditious trials. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

D. Judicial Mandate for Efficiency - The
court emphasized that proceedings under the
N.I. Act should avoid unnecessary technicalities
and be concluded promptly - Held, the trial
court was directed to adhere to the Apex Court's
guidelines and statutory provisions for a speedy
trial. (Paras 6, 7)

Application Disposed of .

List of Cases cited:

1. Indian Bank Association Vs U.O.I., (2014) 5
SCC 590

2. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under
Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
325

3. KSL and Industries Ltd. Vs Mannalal
Khandelwal, (2005) 44 Civil CC

4. Indo International Ltd. Vs St. of Maharashtra,
(2005) 44 Civil CC

5. Harischandra Biyani Vs Stock Holding Corpn.
of India Ltd., (2006) 4 MhLJ 381

6. Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs St. of West Bengal,
(2007) 3 CHN 574

7. Rajesh Agarwal Vs St., (2010) ILR 6 Delhi
610

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shibli Naseem, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Anish Kr.
Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been
filed to direct the Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.) Ist/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur to
conclude the trial of complaint case No.
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19412 of 2022 (Ramdhari Pal vs Ajay
Yadav), u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali,
District Jaunpur

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicant is that though this complaint
under N.I. Act was filed in the year 2022, but
the trial could not yet be concluded. It is
further submitted that as per Section 143(2)
of N.I. Act, the trial for the offence under N.I.
Act should be conducted on day to day basis
and it is further provided u/s 143(3) that the
trial should be concluded within six months
from the date of filing of the complaint.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Indian
Bank Association and others vs. Union of
India and others; (2014) 5 SCC 590, has
issued direction for expeditious disposal of
the cases under N.I. Act. Paragraph Nos. 22,
23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgement are
being

"22. We notice, considering all
those aspects, few High Courts of the country
have laid down certain procedures for speedy
disposal of cases under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. Reference, in this
connection, may be made to the judgments of
the Bombay High Court in KSL and
Industries Ltd. v. Mannalal Khandelwal, Indo
International Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
(2005) 44 Civil CC and Harischandra Biyani
v. Stock Holding Corpn. of India Ltd. (2006)
4 MhLJ 381, the judgment of the Calcutta
High Court in Magma Leasing Ltd. v. State of
West Bengal and others (2007) 3 CHN 574
and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Rajesh Agarwal v. State and another (2010)
ILR 6 Delhi 610.

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 to the
accused. For notice of appearance, a short
date be fixed. If the summons is received
back unserved, immediate follow-up action
be taken.

23.3. The court may indicate in
the summon 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
recalling a witness for cross-examination.
4 All. Ram Dhari Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
755

23.5. The court concerned must
ensure that examination-in-chief, crossexamination 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.

24. We, therefore, direct all the
criminal courts in the country dealing with
Section 138 cases to follow the abovementioned procedures for speedy and
expeditious disposal of cases falling under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed
of, as above."

5. The Apex Court in the case of In
Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under
Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881, reported in
2021 SCC Online 325 has already issued
following directions for expeditious trial
u/s 138 N.I. Act as under:-

24. The upshot of the above
discussion leads us to the following
conclusions:

1) The High Courts are requested
to
issue
practice
directions
to
the
Magistrates to record reasons before
converting trial of complaints under
Section 138 of the Act from summary trial
to summons trial.

2) Inquiry shall be conducted on
receipt of complaints under Section 138 of
the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused, when such
accused resides beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.

3) For the conduct of inquiry
under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of
witnesses on behalf of the complainant
shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit.
In suitable cases, the Magistrate can
restrict the inquiry to examination of
documents
without
insisting
for
examination of witnesses.

4) We recommend that suitable
amendments be made to the Act for
provision of one trial against a person for
multiple offences under Section 138 of the
Act committed within a period of 12
months, notwithstanding the restriction in
Section 219 of the Code.

5) The High Courts are requested
to issue practice directions to the Trial
Courts to treat service of summons in one
complaint under Section 138 forming part
of a transaction, as deemed service in
respect of all the complaints filed before
the same court relating to dishonour of
cheques issued as part of the said
transaction.

6) Judgments of this Court in
Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium
Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the
law correctly and we reiterate that there is
no inherent power of Trial Courts to review
or recall the issue of summons. This does
not affect the power of the Trial Court
under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the
order of issue of process in case it is
brought to the court's notice that it lacks
jurisdiction to try the complaint.

7) Section 258 of the Code is not
applicable to complaints under Section 138
of the Act and findings to the contrary in
Meters and Instruments (supra) do not lay
down correct law. To conclusively deal
with this aspect, amendment to the Act
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
empowering
the
Trial
Courts
to
reconsider/recall summons in respect of
complaints under Section 138 shall be
considered by the Committee constituted by
an order of this Court dated 10.03.2021.

8) All other points, which have
been raised by the Amici Curiae in their
preliminary report and written submissions
and not considered herein, shall be the
subject matter of deliberation by the
aforementioned Committee. Any other issue
relating
to
expeditious
disposal
of
complaints under Section 138 of the Act
shall also be considered by the Committee.

6. From the above mentioned
judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
clear that the Apex Court for expeditious
disposal of cases under N.I. Act, has issued
several directions which the concerned
court/Magistrate has to follow while
deciding the cases under N.I. Act. From the
observations of the Apex Court as well as
analysis of Sections 138 & 143 of N.I. Act,
it is expedient that all the proceedings
under N.I. Act should be concluded
expeditiously
without
going
into
unnecessary technicality.

7.

Considering
the
aforesaid
judgements,
this
Court
directs
the
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Ist/Judicial
Magistrate, Jaunpur to conclude the trial
of complaint case No. 19412 of 2022
(Ramdhari Pal vs Ajay Yadav), u/s 138
N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur,
keeping in mind the direction of the Apex
Court
in
above
mentioned
cases,
expeditiously preferably within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order, strictly in
accordance with statutory provision of
Sections 143(2) and143(3) of the N.I.
Act.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the
application is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 756
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 40581 of 2023

M/s Shiv Shakti Infra Vision Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Sri Aman Kumar
Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Quashing of
Summoning Order Denied - The applicants
sought to quash the summoning order dated
13.06.2022, non-bailable warrant issued on
18.04.2023, and proceedings in Complaint Case
No. 4147 of 2019 (now No. 208 of 2023) under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Held, no illegality or abuse of process
was found in the impugned order, and the
application was dismissed. (Paras 2, 19, 20)

B. Section 138 and 141 of N.I. Act -
Liability of Authorized Signatory - The
applicant company (drawer) and its authorized
signatory were summoned for dishonour of a
cheque - Held, as per Aneeta Hada Vs
Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., the
authorized signatory of a company is considered
a "drawer" under Section 7, and specific
averments under Section 141 are not required
for their liability. (Paras 6, 7, 13, 14)

C. Section 141 of N.I. Act - Vicarious
Liability - The complaint did not explicitly