Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 100424 (ALL)

OMVIR VIASHNAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/37333/2025 · 2025-09-23

Vikas Budhwar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37333 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS has been preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura whereby application (18Ba) moved by the applicant for dismissing the complaint as time barred was rejected and also quash the proceeding of case no. 3291/IX/2022 (Prem Chand v/s Omvir Vaishnav & others) Police Station Kosikalan Mathura, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an application was preferred by the applicant-accused that the complaint itself is not maintainable, particularly when the debt is time-barred and the said application came to be rejected on 17.03.2025 by the court below on the premise that these are the said issues, which are to be decided in trial, as they are mixed questions of facts and law. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there happens to be an order for early disposal, and the proceedings are underway and now, the applicant has to submit his defence. He submits that the grounds, which are being sought to be raised, that the claim is time barred, be considered by the court below when the case is decided. 4. Sri Vikas Sharma, learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ronak Saxena, Sundeep Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Omvir Viashnav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of while observing that in case appropriate proceeding is preferred before the court below taking the aforesaid grounds, then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law. September 24, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 37333 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad