Uttarakhand High Court
30 December vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 30 December, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:10024
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No.630 of 2024
30 December, 2024
Vimal Singh Negi
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the applicant (appeared through
V.C.).
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The challenge herein is to the judgment dated
13.09.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal
in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2024, whereby the said court
has allowed the revision and set-aside the order dated
23.03.2024 passed by the trial court on the application
paper no.54-B moved under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act
by the informant.
3. On the application paper no.54-B moved on
behalf of the informant, it was prayed that 20% of the
amount of cheque to the tune of Rs.1,91,24,293/- which
comes to Rs.38,24,858.60/- be provided as interim
compensation. On the said application, the court of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pauri Garhwal, by order
dated 23.03.2024 allowing the application in part, directed
the accused to pay a sum of Rs.9,56,214/- which is 5% of
1
2024:UHC:10024
the desired amount, be paid within 60 days to the
informant from the date of his producing an undertaking.
4. The said order dated 23.03.2024 was challenged
by the applicant before the revisional court by filing
Criminal Revision No.11 of 2024. By judgment dated
13.09.2024, the order dated 23.03.2024 was set-aside and
the matter was remanded to the trial court to pass the
orders afresh in the matter after hearing the parties in view
of the conclusions drawn in the said judgment. Hence, this
C528 application has been filed by the informant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and I am of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity. The impugned order passed by the revisional
court is precisely a remand order which does not require
any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly,
present C528 application is liable to be dismissed.
6. After the aforesaid order was passed, learned
counsel for the applicant prayed that the criminal case
pending before the trial court may itself be directed to be
decided expeditiously.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
applicant that under Section 143(3) of the NI Act, the law
has enjoined the duty upon the trial court to conclude the
trial under Section 138 of the NI Act within a period of 06
months.
8. I have perused the provision of Sub-Section (3) of
Section 143 of the N.I. Act, which is quoted below:
“143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.-
(1)…………..
(2)………..
(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted
as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall
be made to conclude the trial within six months from
the date of filing of the complaint.”
2
2024:UHC:10024
9. The prayer made being innocuous deserves to
be accepted.
10. Accordingly, the present C528 application is
disposed of with a direction to the learned court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pauri Garhwal to decide the
Criminal Complaint Case No.371 of 2023, Vimal Singh Negi
vs. Sompal, as early as possible, but not later than six
months from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order, as envisaged under section 143(3) of the N.I.
Act, quoted hereinabove.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.12.2024
AK
3