Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 183233 (ALL)

RAVISH PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME CIVIL SECRT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

A482/1219/2023 · 2025-11-13

Brij Raj Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1219 of 2023 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned notice u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. issued by Uppar Civil Judge, Room No.30, District Pratapgarh (in short "trial Court") in Complaint Case No. 0854 of 2019 u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh. 2. Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and the trial Court while applying its mind has not seen the entire evidence/material available on record and the order is cryptic in nature, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that vide order dated 05.04.2023, the case was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, pursuance to which, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court has submitted its report dated 21.08.2023, according to which, no agreement could be reached between the parties and the mediation has failed. 4. He further states that statement under 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the legal notice was given and, thereafter, the complaint was filed within time, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order issued by the trial Court. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Virendra Mishra Ravish Pratap Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. 6. After going through the record, I find that legal notice was given to the applicant after considering the relevant documents on record as well as the statement under 200 Cr.P.C.. 7. Application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. However, it is always open for the parties to raise all the pleas, as permissible in law, before the trial Court. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. November 13, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 1219 of 2023 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench