KESHAV CHANDRA PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/20019/2025 · 2025-07-13
Vikas Budhwar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 65591 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 65591 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113085 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20019 of 2025 (Leading case) Applicant :- Keshav Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Pathak,Chandra Pratap Singh,G.A. Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20140 of 2025 (Connected case) Applicant :- Keshav Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Pratap Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Chandra Pratap Singh learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in leading and connected applications. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any response/ affidavit, however, the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record. 3. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. The facts of the leading applications are that a complaint stood preferred by the applicant herein on 07.10.2021 against the opposite party no.2 U/s 138 of N.I Act with an allegations with discharge of liability, the opposite party no.2 had drawn a cheque bearing no. 000129 dated 20.05.2021 which came to be dishonoured on 11.08.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 31.08.2021 and the complaint on 07.10.2021. Thereafter, the complaint came to be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. on 10.04.2024. 5. In so far as the connected is concerned application is concerned, the same has been preferred by the applicant herein with an allegation that U/s 138 of N.I. Act with an allegations that cheque no. 000130 came to be drawn by the opposite party no.2 on 20.08.2021 which on presentation in the bank on 30.09.2021 was dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20.10.2021 and a complaint on 20.11.2021 which also came
to be rejected on 10.04.2024 U/s 203 Cr.P.C. Questioning the orders dated 10.04.2024 dismissing the complaint U/s 203 Cr.P.C. the applicant has filed the present applications. 6.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though a remedy for preferring a revision lies but in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, particularly when the applicant was an heart patient suffering from various ailments, he could not present himself during the course of the proceedings and it is not a case wherein he was a habitual absentee as due to certain reasons beyond the control and the comprehension, he could not appear from 20.02.2023 to 10.04.2023. He seeks to invite attention the medical documents and also submits that a sympathetic consideration be accorded. 7. Learned AGA as well as the counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that whatever might be the ground whether tenable or not tenable, they are liable to be raised by way of a revision and according to learned counsel for opposite party no.2, he would not object that delay if any occurred in filing the revision. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant as per the instructions submits that the applicant shall be preferring revision taking all legal and valid grounds and the court below be directed to decide the same on merits. 9. Considering the submissions so made across the bar and after bearing in mind, the stand taken by the respective parties, this Court is not going into the issue while directing to the appellant to prefer revision, questioning the order which are subject matter of challenge by preferring the same by 25.07.2025 taking all legal and factual grounds including the ground that the applicant was ill and he was not in a position to attend the same. 10. Since the statement was made by the opposite party no.2 that delay would not be opposed thus it is expected that the court below shall decide the revision in correct perspective. 11. With the aforesaid observation, both the applications are disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad