Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 261 of 2024

Rajendra Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Yadav, Tulsi Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant application has been filed for grant of special leave to file the present appeal against the impugned judgement and order dated 19.10.2024, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1068 of 2024, under Sections 392, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur whereby the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the perusal of the judgement, it is clear that the court below has not considered the statements of the appellant and his wife and erroneously acquitted the accused. Therefore, leave may be granted to file the appeal against the impugned judgement and order.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned judgement, it is clear that though in the complaint several witnesses had been mentioned, no one was produced during trial to be cross examined except the wife of the complainant/appellant - Roli and one Jitendra Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Neither the eye witness Jitendra Kumar nor any other witness was produced at the time of examination, therefore, there is no independent witness to support the story of the complaint. It is further clear from the impugned judgement that there is serious contradiction between the statements of complainant and his wife. It is also clear from the record that a proceeding under

A378 No. 261 of 2024

2

Section 138 N.I. Act was filed against the appellant by the private respondents regarding a cheque which is the subject matter of theft and loot in the present complaint and regarding which the complaint itself was filed after more than one month which also creates doubt in the story made in the complaint by the appellant. Therefore, the court below has rightly acquitted the accused by giving them benefit of doubt.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgement and order. Accordingly, the special leave to appeal is rejected .

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

September 16, 2025 Vandana

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad