Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rohit Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1053 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8986 (4 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.3

Criminal Misc. Application No.1053 of 2005

Rohit Kumar and another                 vs. State of U.P. and another

Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A..

Applicant Rohit Kumar and one other have moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case no.2142 of 2004, Om Prakash vs. Rohit Kumar and another pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), Ghaziabad.

Brief facts of this case are that one cheque bearing No.918876 of Rs. six lacs dated 16.4.2001, Oriental Bank of Commerce Nehru Nagar, Nasirpur, Ghaziabad was issued by petitioner/opposite party  Rohit Kumar against his liability in  favour of respondent no.2 Om Prakash, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the applicant/opposite party. Thereafter, legal notice was given by respondent/complainant no.2, even then the amount of alleged theft was not paid within time. Thereafter, criminal complaint was filed by Om Prakash, respondent no.2 against the applicant Rohit Kumar and M/s Rohit Steel Tubes. They were summoned for the trial for the offence under  Section 138  of Negotiable Instrument Act by C.J.M.,  Ghaziabad vide order dated 26.3.2002.

Feeling aggrieved by it, the objection was filed on behalf of both the accused before concerned Magistrate, which was rejected by A.C.J.M., Court Room No.8, District Ghaziabad on the ground that it was not maintainable  in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Subramanyam Sethuram vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2004 (Crl.) (SC) 860 and Adalat Prasad vs. Roop Lal Jindal 113 Delhi Law Times. Thereafter, both the accused have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. At this stage, Compromise Application No.58880 of 2006 has been filed. Therefore, it is liable to be decided on the basis of compromise.

Thus, this application is decided in terms of compromise application, which shall be formed as part of the judgement and order.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.