Dismissed¶17

Naresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2025CRLR/8379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Naresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another; Criminal Revision No. 8379 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided December 11, 2025; Section 138 N.I. Act; discharge application rejection upheld; Complaint No. 496 of 2025; Suvidha Microfin; blank cheque Cheque No. 030087; guarantor; loan allegedly repaid; complaint filed after four years; charge on strong suspicion; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 rejecting the discharge application; the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ¶17

Naresh Chandra vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8379 of 2025

¶3

Naresh Chandra

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Chandan Kumar Shankar Pandey	Chaturvedi, Uma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 91

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, passed by the Special Judge, 138 N.I. Act, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint No. 496 of 2025 (Suvcidha Microfin Vs. Naresh Chandra), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sector 63, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby the application for discharge moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that Suvidha Microfinance Company has taken a blank cheque bearing Cheque No. 030087 from the revisionist before depositing the loan amount as a guarantor. After receipt of notice and summoning order, the revisionist has enquired the matter, then he has come into knowledge that the Suvidha Microfin Partnership Firms is another company, while revisionist has taken loan from Suvidha Microfinance Company. The opposite party no.2 has filed a false and fabricated complaint against the revisionist. The court of Special Judge, 138 NI Act, Gautam Buddh Nagar without considering the entire material fact as well as relevant documents, he has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that as per rules and conditions of the debt book issued by the authority concerned, the alleged amount was to be deposited within one year and as per rules, the

¶11

CRLR No. 8379 of 2025

¶12

¶13

revisionist was already deposited the aforesaid loan amount, so the alleged complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 is false and fabricated. It is also alleged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 after lapse of more than four years while the alleged cheque was given by the revisionist in the year 2020, in spite of these, the revisionist has already deposited the aforesaid loan amount, but learned trial court has not considered the same and rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

¶14

Learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order is legal and there is no illegality in it.

¶15

From perusal of the impugned, it appears that the learned trial court has decided the discharge application by way of a detailed and speaking order dated 28.10.2025. Learned trial court opined that the cheque was dishonoured and notice was issued and the complaint was filed within a stipulated period. Learned trial court has held that at the time of framing of charge, it is not necessary to look into the matter that the accused is liable to be convicted at this stage. The charge could be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. The credit card which has been produced by the accused persons, it is a matter of evidence, whereas both the parties has to adduce evidence at the appropriate stage. It is obligatory duty of the complainant that he has to prove legal debt. The summon has been issued. The revisionist has got released on bail. The evidence has to be adduced by both the parties. No final finding could be given at the initial stage.

¶16

Learned trial court has also opined that the Magistrate who has passed the summoning order, he could not cancel his own summoning order. The trial has to began. The revisionist and the opposite party no.2/complainant are having opportunity to lead their evidences. The present complaint is filed under Section 138 of NI Act after completion of basic necessary ingredient and within stipulated period.

¶17

In view thereof, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 28.10.2025. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is thus, dismissed.

¶18

December 11, 2025 sfa/

¶19

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Chandra v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nikhil @ Nikki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Patel Alias Gorelal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Adesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rekha Khera and Another vs State of U.P. and Another