Dismissed¶25

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2025NA528/36704/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; Section 143A N.I. Act payment direction of Rs.90,000/- left undisturbed; post-remand fresh order; Section 138 NI Act Complaint Case No.957 of 2023, Ishtiyaq v. Manoj Kumar, Deoband, Saharanpur; earlier orders 07.11.2024 and 09.05.2025 set aside by 14.7.2025 remand; parameters of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava 2024 (4) SCC 419; 5% of cheque amount sought by counsel but not directed; cheques given as guarantee; Rs.9 lakh loan claimed returned; no interference with trial court discretion; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; decision date October 7, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court finds no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in the impugned order. ¶24

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36704 of 2025

Manoj Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vinay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Court No. - 76

¶9

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶11

This application has been filed by applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 18.8.2025 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.957 of 2023, Ishtiyaq Vs. Manoj Kumar, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Badagaonv, District Saharanpur.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by means of the impugned order dated 18.8.2025 the court concerned has directed for payment of Rs.90,000/under Section 143A of N.I. Act. Previously, this Court has remanded the matter to the court concerned by order dated 14.7.2025 passed in Application U/s 528 BNSS No.20854 of 2025, Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another in which the following observations were made:-

¶13

"7. Since the parameter so enumerated in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) has not been considered and the exercise is lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the orders dated 07.11.2024 and 09.05.2025.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Deoband, Saharanpur and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the court below/Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge Room No.4 Saharanpur in proceedings registered in pursuance of Complaint Case No.957 of 2023, "Ishtiyaq Vs. Manoj Kumar under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Badgaonv District Saharanpur, which is presently pending before Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur are set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the Trial Court to pass fresh order in light of the judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). For facilitation in speedy disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 18.07.2025. The court below shall take endeavour to pass orders strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment particularly in view of the fact that learned

¶15

NA528 No. 36704 of 2025

¶16

¶17

counsel for the applicant, as per the instructions of his client, has disclosed that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. If adjournment is granted, same shall not be more than five days in a stretch."

¶18

After the remand of the matter, the present impugned order has been passed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand, 2024 (4) SCC 419 granted 5% of the cheque amount under Section 143A N.I. Act and the aforesaid 5% may also be directed in the present case.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant was queried as to the defence raised by the applicant, he submits that it is not in dispute that Rs.9 lacs was taken as loan from the complainant however, the aforesaid amount was returned to the opposite party no.2.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheques were given in the guarantee.

¶22

On a query being made to learned counsel for the applicant as to the date when the amount was returned, learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the date of return of the amount has not been stated.

¶23

In the present case, it is to be seen that the trial court while passing the impugned order has given detailed account and has recorded the finding that the amount has been admitted. The cheque in question has not been disputed by learned counsel for the applicant before this Court.

¶24

This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the discretion of the trial court by means of the impugned order.

¶25

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶26

October 7, 2025 Bhaskar

¶27

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases