Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 28.01.2025 and the bailable warrant issued against the applicant in the Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint are lawful and should be quashed, given the applicant's claim that the signed cheque was lost before presentation.

Court's answer

The court finds no illegality or error in the impugned summoning order because the cheque was returned by the bank on account of insufficiency of funds, so the applicant's signatures on the cheque cannot be disputed (and he does not dispute them).

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's claim that the signed cheques were lost is contradicted by his own contemporaneous records: the alleged loss was not mentioned in the 17.10.2016 information to the police station, the 18.10.2016 intimation to the bank, or the public notice published by him.

Key takeaways

Whether the signed cheque was lost is a matter of evidence that can be examined only by the trial court after evidence; on this basis the petition is misconceived.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing petitions — summoning order in S. 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour case. A petition under S. 528 BNSS 2023 challenging the summoning order dated 28.01.2025 and the bailable warrant against the applicant (Rajeev Kumar Jain) was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Rajnish Kumar, J. (Order Date 6.5.2025). The cheque had been returned by the bank marked insufficient funds, so the applicant's signatures on it could not be disputed. His contention that the signed cheque was lost on 17.10.2016 was absent from his same-day police report, his 18.10.2016 intimation to IDBI Bank, Modi Nagar, and his 7.11.2016 newspaper notice; the point was held to be one of evidence for the trial court. Finding no illegality or error in the impugned order, the court dismissed the petition as misconceived. Cross-reference: the applicant had filed a complaint under S. 173(4) BNSS 2023 before ACJM-V, Meerut against respondent no.2 and one Manish Raizada.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26508

Court No. - 11

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3669 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Krishna Srivastava,Nishant Singh,Surendra Kumar Tripathi,Sweta Swarankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Heard, Shri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

This petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 28.01.2025 and for quashing the bailable warrant issued against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged Cheque in regard to which the application under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been filed alongwith other Cheques was lost on 17.10.2016, in regard to which a report was lodged by the applicant on 17.10.2016 itself before the S.H.O., Kotwali-Lal Kurti, District-Meerut. Thereafter on 18.10.2016 it was intimated to the Branch Manager I.D.B.I.Bank, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad with a request not to clear the Cheques. The publication in this regard was also made by the applicant in the News Papers on 7^th of November, 2016. Thus the said Cheque could not have been issued by the applicant.

He further submits that after receipt of the notice, the applicant filed a Complaint case under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S.,2023 before the Court of ACJM-V^th , Meerut against the respondent no.2 and one Manish Raizada. Thus the

submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned summoning order and the bailable warrant against the applicant are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned order because the Cheque has been returned by the Bank on account of non sufficiency of funds. Thus the signatures of the applicant on the Cheque cannot be disputed, which he also does not dispute. However he submits that the signed Cheques were lost, which has been mentioned by him in the complaint, which has been filed admittedly after receipt of the notice from the respondent no.2. However, it has not been mentioned in the information given to the Police Station on 17.10.2016 and the Bank on 18.10.2016. It is also not mentioned in the public notice published by the applicant. Even otherwise it is a matter of evidence, which can be examined only after evidence by the trial court. The petition is misconceived.

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

...................................... .(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Banswar

Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench