Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10583 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandan Srivastava, Lavkush Yadav, Yogesh Somvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel, who has filed power on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶10

The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD)-I/Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya in Complaint Case No.670 of 2024, Mohd. Zaid Khan Vs. Rasheeda Khatoon, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶11

It is the case of the applicant that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on 04.03.2021 before the trial court alleging that applicant had borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from him for the purpose of payment of her bank loan. It is further alleged that after considerable lapse of time, opposite party no.2 demanded to return the said amount and the applicant issued three cheques of different dates for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively duly signed by her. It is further alleged that the said cheques were presented by opposite party no.2 in the bank, however, vide bank memos dated 05.03.2020, 07.03.2020 and 12.03.2020 he was informed that all three cheques had been dishonoured. It is further alleged that the complainant went out of station and fell ill and upon his recovery, he sent a demand notice to the applicant through his counsel on 02.03.2021. Along with the said complaint, opposite party no.2 also filed a deposit slip dated 07.03.2020 and a bank memo dated 05.03.2020. The deposit slip is shown to be dated 07.03.2020, whereas the bank memo bears an earlier

¶12

A482 No. 10583 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

date i.e. 05.03.2020. In other words, it is being projected as if the bank memo was issued even prior to the deposit of the cheques, which clearly renders the very foundation of the complaint doubtful and suspicious.

¶15

Statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court and thereafter summons have been issued against the applicant on 02.02.2023. Opposite party no.2 by way of an affidavit, filed his statement in evidence under Section 254 Cr.P.C. Even in the said evidence under Section 254 Cr.P.C., opposite party no.2 did not in clear and unequivocal terms, stated that he had advanced any loan amount to the applicant. Cross-examination of opposite party no.2 was done on 28.10.2024, 18.11.2024, 09.12.2024 and 10.12.2024.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant summits that certain questions were to be asked from opposite party no.2, but the same were not asked by the earlier counsel that is why an application for recall of the witness/complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed, but the same has been rejected without ascertaining the fact that the questions were very relevant. He further submits that the new counsel engaged by the applicant had filed an application, but the same was rejected without application of mind by the trial court. The six questions which are proposed to be asked from opposite party no.2, are quoted below:-

¶17

"i) "Why was the fact of the alleged loss of the cheques not disclosed either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.?"

¶18

ii) "Why was the alleged fact of loss of the cheque also concealed in the purported demand notice sent by you?"

¶19

iii) "In the very deposit slip filed by you, the date of deposit of the cheques in question is shown as 07.03.2020, whereas the bank memo of dishonour bears the date 05.03.2020. How is it possible that a bank memo of dishonour could have been issued even before the cheques were deposited?"

¶20

iv) "In your evidence/statement filed under Section 254 Cr.P.C., you have stated the date of loss of the cheques as 22.12.2020, whereas during cross-examination you stated, "all my three cheques fell from my bag at Bhelsar Chauraha on 22.05.2020 at 5:00 p.m." There is a clear discrepancy between the two dates regarding the alleged loss of the cheques what is the reason for this contradiction?"

¶21

v) "With regard to the alleged loss of the cheques, as per the Lost Article Information Report lodged by you - which you have referred to as a First Information Report-was any police investigation conducted pursuant thereto? If so, what was the outcome of such investigation?"

¶22

vi) "The present complaint has been filed by you in respect of Cheque Nos. 59789',

¶23

A482 No. 10583 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

'59787' and '59788', whereas the said Lost Article Information Report pertains only to Cheque Nos. 59787' and '59789', which allegedly relate to payments of Rs. 4,00,000/and Rs. 5,00,000/-respectively. Despite this, you have raised a demand of Rs. 16,00,000/- in your complaint. What is the explanation for this inconsistency?"

¶26

On the other hand, counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been closed and the applicant had already availed the opportunity to cross-examine all the wittiness and the evidence was closed, for which sufficient finding has been given by the trial court. However, after four months, the applicant moved an application for recall of the witness/complainant at the fag end of the trial, which was rightly rejected. He, therefore, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.

¶27

After going through the record and also the proposed six questions, I do not find that it is not a fit stage where the applicant may be allowed to crossexamine the witnesses for the simple reason that the case for taking evidence was closed on his statement and he had cross-examined the witnesses on 28.10.2024, 18.11.2024, 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2024 and was given full opportunity. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be allowed only to meet out the needs of justice. Here in the present case, proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been closed and after four months from the date of closure of the evidence, the application was moved, which is not the appropriate stage. All the six questions which have been framed, are not relevant at all for the reason that relevant record is available. The applicant can argue the case finally and all these questions which are pertaining to matter of record, need not to be examined by allowing the application for recall of the witnesses. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.

¶28

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected.

¶29

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶30

December 15, 2025 Rao/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kayum and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Rachna Thru. Her Husband Prince Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Vidyamani Prabhakarnath Shukla @ Vidyamani Shukla vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Deptt and another

Rajmani @ Rajmani Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

Jabir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ifatikhar Ahmad Khan (Ishtikhar Khan as Mentioned in Complaint) vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others