Applicant sought relief under Section 482 CrPC regarding summoning order in a cheque dishonour case, contending the debt claim exceeded the FIR amount. Court directed deposit of Rs. 50,000/-, issued notice to respondent no. 2 for consent to mediation, stayed the summoning order till next date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2060 of 2025 Applicant :- Anoop Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashikant Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the complainant had lodged a complaint on 12.06.2021 with the Additional Police Commissioner, Lucknow North, alleging that he had paid a sum of 67,00,000/- to the petitioner on the same₹ date. As a result, an FIR was registered as FIR No. 145/2021 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Mahanagar. A charge sheet has been filed in the case, and the petitioner has been granted bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards page No. 32 of the paper book which shows that the same complainant (opposite party no. 2) has filed as many as five complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming a total of 1,67,00,000/- as a legally enforceable debt₹ against the petitioner. The amount claimed in these complaints significantly differs from the allegations in the FIR, which initially mentioned only 67,00,000/-. However, all the cheques₹ mentioned in the chart at page 32 are part of the charge sheet.
It has been further submitted that if the contents of the FIR is taken as it is, on 06.12.2021, the petitioner could only be held liable for ₹67,00,000/- and no more and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim any amount beyond ₹67,00,000/-. To support this argument, reliance has been
placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, (2023) 1 SCC 578, particularly paragraphs 33 and 34.
Learned AGA, on the other hand, has disputed this contention submitting that the FIR pertains to allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust committed by the petitioner, whereas the complaint under 138 N.I. Act has been lodged for a separate enforceable debt which is depicted in para 1 and 2 of the complaint. Thus, there is no relation between the two and no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from this argument.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are prima facie commercial transaction and if the matter is referred to the Mediation and Concliation Centre of this court, the dispute can be settled through mediation.
In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of 15 days from today.
Issue notice to respondent no. 2 who shall appear before this Court on the next date to give his consent whether he wants the dispute to be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre or not.
List on 04.04.2025. On that date both the petitioner and respondent no. 2 shall appear before this Court.
Till the next date of listing, the impugned summoning order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 5, Lucknow in case No. 42129/2021 "Manish Kumar Rai Vs. Anoop Srivastava" shall remain stayed.
It is made clear that in case the amount as directed by this Court is not deposited within within the stipulated time period, the
interim order shall stand vacated automatically.
The learned Mediator shall make an endeavour to decide the dispute between the parties regarding all the complaints filed by opposite party no. 2 as mentioned at page No. 32 of the memo of the petition.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025 R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amount claimable in the NI Act complaints is limited to the ₹67,00,000/- alleged in the FIR as per the cited Supreme Court decision?
Whether the dispute should be referred to mediation for settlement across all five cheque complaints?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, (2023) 1 SCC 578Relied on
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anoop Srivastava
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko.
Manish Kumar Rai
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
