Disposed

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2025NA528/24949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash summoning in a Section 138 cheque-dishonour complaint. Court held allegations raised were matters of defence for trial and declined interference, permitting the applicant to contest before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicant to contest the matter before the court below taking all legal and factual grounds.

Ram Niwas Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116151

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24949 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Niwas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.3, Agra as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 13567 of 2022 ( Chandan Verma Versus Ramniwas ), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Hariparvat, DistrictAgra, pending before learned Additional Court No.3, Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 07.11.2022 with an allegation that the applicant had friendly relationship with O.P. No.2 and with respect to a request made for financial assistance, the O.P. No.2 herein had accorded the financial assistance and in discharge of the said liability, cheque bearing number "601600" dated 15.07.2022 of Rs.3,00,000/- stood drawn, which on presentation in the bank on 16.09.2022, was dishonoured with the remark "payment stopped by drawer" followed by statutory demand notice dated 06.10.2022 and a complaint pursuant whereto, the complainant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 06.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for a simple reason that the applicant is a Government Teacher and there was no question of taking any loan, as loan was easily available to him and further the cheque in question was misplaced so a complaint was lodged on 10.02.2022 before the Station House Officerand the wife of the applicant had done mischief.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has submitted that whatever arguments are, they are relatable to defence and further presumption under section 139 would be there.

¶10

Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises to determination is the extent of judicial intervention.

¶11

Apparently, the allegation in the complaint is with relation to drawing of a cheque, which stood dishonoureed. The question as to whether there is any merit in the allegation or not is a question of trial. Further the arguments so sought to be raised by the applicant with regard to the fact that the applicant is a Government Teacher and he has not taken loan is a matter of defence and the complaint being lodged to the Station House Officer is also a matter of defence. Accordingly the interference is declined.

¶12

The application is disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to contest the matter before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 N.S.Rathour

¶14

(Vikas Budhwar, J)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases