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


Ram Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 26841 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17691 (13 November 2007)

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).


Hon'ble Shiv Charan J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the facts of the case.

The present petition has been instituted u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by Special CJM, Varanasi in case No.3537/2004 Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. Ram Kumar.

The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is ready and willing to the amount and hence the summoning order dated 25.11.2004 be set aside. He also argued that no notice was received by the applicant. It is further argued that notice was also invalid and amount was demanded along with interest at the rate of 25% pa. Applicant was in impression that the cheque was bounced.

Learned AGA opposed the argument of the counsel for the applicant and stated that the order of summoning and also the order dated 9.10.2007 passed on the application of the applicant is perfectly justified and the cheque was bounced and notice was served. Hence the complaint was instituted within time. There is no provision for recall of the order by the Magistrate.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the counsel for the parties. In my opinion there is no illegality and irregularity in the order and proper summoning order was passed. Moreover, there is no power to the Criminal Court to recall its own order. It is for the parties to compromise the matter or not. But the court is supposed and expected to pass an order in accordance with law. If the complainant is ready to accept the amount he makes the compromise according to law but no direction can be given by the court to the complainant to make compromise. The application is liable to be rejected.

The application/petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.




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.