New Star Agro Food Processing ... vs State Of U.P.And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 18269 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17560 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- New Star Agro Food Processing Private Limited
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Prasad Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the applicant states that due to mistake his name has been shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, he is counsel for the applicant in the present case.

Heard Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.I for the State.

The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the order of non-bailable warrant dated 15.03.2022 as well as order of proclamation for person absconding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. dated 25.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Court, Negotiable Instruments Act, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 19937 of 2020 (Soniya Enterprises Vs. New Star Agro Food Processing Pvt. Ltd.) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Moradabad.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant by way of the present application challenging non bailable warrant dated 15.03.2022 as well as proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. dated 25.04.2022 as both the orders dated 15.03.2022 and 25.04.2022 are illegal. He next submitted that the complaint of the present matter was filed against the applicant on 11.12.2020 and after that summoning order was passed against the applicant on 03.02.2021 and thereafter, on 06.03.2021 bailable warrant was issued against the applicant and thereafter, on 08.11.2021 non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant and after that on 25.04.2022 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. Order dated 25.04.2022 as well as order issuing non bailable warrant are illegal because before issuing the same, it is nowhere stated in the order-sheet by the court below that either summons or bailable warrant earlier issued against the applicant were served upon the applicant.

He placed reliance upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen Singh & Others in Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 5475 of 2021 and in Smt. Usha Jain And Anr. vs. State of U.P. And Anr. passed in Application U/S 482 No. 19037 of 2018 and submitted that with regard to issuance of warrants a Circular was issued on 20.08.1998 but the court below without following the Circular dated 20.08.1998 directly issued non bailable warrant against the applicant and thereafter also issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the applicant, therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that a compliant was filed against applicant on 11.12.2020 under the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act in which on 03.02.2021, applicant was summoned and applicant challenged the summoning order along with the proceedings of the complaint before this Court vide Application U/S 482 No. 6808 of 2022 and on 07.06.2022 his application was dismissed by this Court on merits, therefore, applicant on technical ground cannot avoid the proceedings of the case pending against him and after dismissal of the application filed by the applicant on 07.06.2022 it was the duty of the applicant to appear before the court concerned but instead of appearing before the court below, applicant challenged non bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against him before this Court by way of present application although both the process had been issued earlier against him from passing the order dated 07.06.2022 by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 6808 of 2022 moved by the applicant and therefore, on this ground alone, the instant application is liable to be dismissed as it shows the intention of the applicant to avoid the court proceedings and no leniency can be shown to such litigant, who is not even ready to appear before the court concerned and repeatedly on different grounds on minor issues challenged every order passed by the court below before this Court.

I have heard both the parties and have perused the record of the case.

It is a case, which shows the sheer abuse of process of law by the applicant- accused. From perusal of the record it reflects that in the year 2020, a complaint was filed against the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act in which applicant was summoned in February, 2021 and thereafter bailable warrant was issued against applicant on 06.03.2021 and it was issued till 20.09.2021 and thereafter, on 08.11.2021 non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant as applicant did not appear before the court below and thereafter on 25.04.2022 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant and it appears after that applicant challenged the proceedings of the case before this Court vide Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6808 of 2022, which was dismissed on merits on 07.06.2022.

From perusal of the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by this Court in the application earlier filed by the applicant it appears that no ground was taken by the applicant at that time that he did not either receive any summons or he was not having any knowledge about the warrants issued against him. It appears from the order dated 07.06.2022 that counsel for the applicant argued the case on merits, which was dismissed and after the dismissal of the application earlier moved by the applicant he filed the instant application challenging non bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which was issued against him even before passing the order dated 07.06.2022 by this Court in the Application U/S 482 No. 6808 of 2022. This is not permissible and it shows the intention of the applicant to avoid the proceedings of the case.

Admittedly at the time of filing the Application U/S 482 No. 6808 of 2022, both the impugned orders had already passed and applicant earlier did not challenge the same but when his application was dismissed on merits then he challenged the impugned order by way of present application after several months, therefore, this attitude of the applicant is highly deprecated and cannot be approved.

Applicant is facing trial under Section 138 of N.I. Act and as per the provisions of Section 143 (3) of N.I. Act every proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act should be concluded within a period of six months from the date of its filing. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as in view of this Court no leniency can be shown in favour of such errant litigant.

In view of the above, the instant application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is directed that the court concerned shall conclude the proceedings of the case preferably within a period six months from the date of information of this order strictly in accordance with law as per the provisions of Section 143(3) of N.I. Act.

Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today.

It appears that the connected matter has wrongly connected with the instant application. Be that as it may, as the instant application has already been dismissed, therefore, connected matter is hereby dis-connected.

Order Date :- 22.11.2022

Aditya