Allahabad High Court High Court

Vinod Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.J.M. Vi … on 7 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.J.M. Vi … on 7 July, 2010
Court No. - 5

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2868 of 2010

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.J.M. Vi Lucknow And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajendra Prasad Misra-Ii
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Vedpal,J.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 520 of 2007 Neeraj Sahu Vs. Vinod
Kumar Pandey pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
in which the petitioner was summoned under order dated 22.10.2007 to face
trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable of
Instruments Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record of the case.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned
Magistrtae summoned the petitioner in this case in disregard to the
provisions of Section 204(2) Cr.P.C. as no list of witness was filed. This
ground is not tenable in view of the principle of law laid down by this Court
in Molvi Habibur Rahman Faizi and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
1998 Cr.L.J. 2345 (All) wherein it was held that if summons was issued
without filing of the list of witnesses, proceedings cannot be quashed as list of
witnesses may be filed subsequently and it is merely an irregularity which is
curable under the provisions of Section 465 Cr.P.C.

It has been further submitted that no notice was issued within limitation. This
argument is also devoid of merit. It has been clearly stated in the complaint
that complainant had received information of dishonor of cheque on
2.3.2007 and notice was issued within time. Thus, there appears no ground to
interfere inthe impugned order passed by the court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that non bailable warrant
has been issued against the applicant . In case the applicant surrenders and
moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by
the court below expeditiously in the light of the law laid by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2005 CBC page 705.

With the aforesaid observations the petition is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 7.7.2010
Tripathi