Dismissed

Vikarna Pratap Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Vikran Pratap Singh in the Memo of Complaint ) v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2025A482/1496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a cheque-dishonour complaint and the summoning order, arguing the complaint disclosed no date or mode of payment of the alleged loan. The High Court held such matters are factual questions for the trial court and declined to conduct a mini trial; the application was rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikarna Pratap Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Vikran Pratap… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1496 of 2025

¶3

Vikarna Pratap Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Vikran Pratap Singh In The Memo Of Complaint )

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anshu Singh, Sandeep Kumar

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.113967 of 2023, Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. Vikran Pratap Singh, under Section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Additional Court, Court No.1, Lucknow..

¶10

Sri Parth Anand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was appointed as a Music Teacher/Supervisor in St. Laurance School by Father Lancy Rego in the year 2017. The music instruments were purchased by the management of the school and the said instruments were in the supervision of the applicant, therefore, Father Lancy Rego had taken five cheques from the applicant as security. On 15.01.2022, Father Lancy Rego put pressure upon the applicant to give Rs.2,00,000/-to him for continuing his job in the school and the applicant due to the pressure and under compulsion, transferred the amount of Rs.68,000/- in the bank account of Father Lancy Rego bearing A/C No.0363101029509 on different dates. Later on, Father Lancy Rego was transferred to St. James School, Hardoi and he started pressurising the applicant to do the work in St. James School, Hardoi also without any remuneration and on refusal, he started threatening the applicant to dismiss him from job and recovery of the salary received by him from the school.

¶11

A482 No. 1496 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no date, time as well as mode of payment of alleged money to the applicant by opposite party no.2 has been disclosed in the memo of complaint as well as in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This fact itself belies the allegation that applicant had borrowed the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from opposite party no.2. He also submits that neither the applicant knows opposite party no.2 nor he has ever met him, as such no question arises to the applicant to borrow the amount from opposite party no.2.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the trial court while issuing summons, has not applied its mind and the order appears to be cryptic and non-speaking as it has not discussed the facts as mentioned.

¶15

On the other hand, Sri Rahul Singh Rana, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted that Cheque No.000001 dated 09.07.2023 for Rs.6,00,000/- was given to opposite party no.2 by the applicant. The said cheque was presented in the bank by opposite party no.2, but the same was returned with the endorsement that “payment stopped by drawer”. Thus, the cheque was dishonoured and thereafter a legal notice was sent to the applicant on 30.08.2023 and the present complaint has been filed on 05.10.2023. Thereafter, statement of the complainant has been recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and after going through the record, statement of the complainant and the documentary evidence available on record, the trial court was satisfied and issued summons against the applicant, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the same.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

The argument raised by the counsel for the applicant that there is no date, time as well as place and mode of payment of alleged money to the applicant by opposite party no.2 has been disclosed in the memo of complaint, cannot be sustained for the reason that all these factual aspects can be looked into by the trial court. The trial court while issuing summons, applied its mind and after looking to the complaint, statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the

¶18

A482 No. 1496 of 2025

¶19

¶20

documentary evidence available on record issued summons against the applicant. The defence which the applicant has taken hear, is a factual aspect which can very well be looked into by the trial court and this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not record any finding on the factual aspects, for which certainly the evidence is to be adduced on record and this Court can not adduce evidence on record and cannot do mini trial.

¶21

Application is devoid of merit. It s accordingly rejected.

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶23

November 27, 2025

¶24

Rao/-

¶25

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

Vikarna Pratap Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Vikran Pratap Singh in the Memo of Complaint ) v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikarna Pratap Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Vikran Pratap Singh in the Memo of Complaint ) v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Spl. Judicial Magistrate and Others

Narendra Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Pintu @ Tej Bahadur Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 4 Others

Sushil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another