SHRI CHITRANSH CONSTRUCTION BABINA THROUGH PROPRIETOR RAJEEV KHARE vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A. — NA528/10987/2026

Case under Civil Defence Act Section 138,216-138. Disposed: -- on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC011517232026

Filing Number

NA528/

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

NA528/10987/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Judge

Deepak Verma

Coram

Deepak Verma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

U/S 482 Cr.P.C. against order of Magistrate under section 138 of negotiable instruments Act 1881 ( 38 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 30-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Defence Act Section 138,216-138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI CHITRANSH CONSTRUCTION BABINA THROUGH PROPRIETOR RAJEEV KHARE

    Adv. SHIV KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.M/S KUMAR TRADERS BABINA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Deepak VermaView PDF

    The High Court of Allahabad disposed of Chitransh Construction's application to quash a cheque-bounce complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by M/s Kumar Traders. Rather than quashing, the court granted the accused one month to file a compounding application with 10% cheque deposit, followed by four months to settle, emphasizing that compensatory resolution should precede punitive measures and that early-stage settlement reduces judicial arrears. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. NA528/10987/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Allahabad disposed of Chitransh Construction's application to quash a cheque-bounce complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by M/s Kumar Traders. Rather than quashing, the court granted the accused one month to file a compounding application with 10% cheque deposit, followed by four months to settle, emphasizing that compensatory resolution should precede punitive measures and that early-stage settlement reduces judicial arrears. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case