Disposed¶22

Madan Mohan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025NA528/37064/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NA528 No. 37064 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Vikas Budhwar J.; 24.09.2025; S.528 BNSS quashing application; Complaint Case No.1371/2025 (Hardev Singh v. Madan Mohan Tiwari); S.138 NI Act; P.S. Khajuriya, Rampur; mandatory enquiry S.202(1) CrPC / S.225(1) BNSS not conducted; first proviso compliance absent; complainant Rampur, applicant Lucknow/Sitapur; summoning order 11.08.2025 set aside; matter remitted for fresh order; certified copy by 10.10.2025; cheque no. 944754 dated 9.4.2025 for Rs. 40,00,000/-; precedents cited by counsel: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325; (2024) LawSuit(Bom) 325.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 11.08.2025 set aside; matter remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order; applicant directed to submit certified copy of the order by 10.10.2025; the applications stand disposed of. ¶22

Madan Mohan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandatory enquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C./Section 225(1) B.N.S.S., including compliance with its first proviso, was conducted before the applicant was summoned, the complainant being a resident of Rampur and the applicant of Lucknow/Sitapur. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

From the complaint itself it is apparent that the applicant is a resident of Lucknow/Sitapur whereas the complainant is of Rampur, and nothing is forthcoming on record regarding conduct of the enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C./Section 225(1) B.N.S.S. or compliance with the first proviso of that provision.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The summoning order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur is set aside.

¶22

Key takeaways

Since it was the stand of counsel for opposite party no.2 that the order be set aside, the matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.ratio¶22
For facilitation and early disposal, the applicant is to submit the certified copy of the order passed today by 10.10.2025.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.; decided 24.09.2025) — Application under S. 528 BNSS (No. 37064 of 2025) by Madan Mohan Tiwari seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1371/2025 (Hardev Singh v. Madan Mohan Tiwari) under S. 138 NI Act, P.S. Khajuriya, District Rampur, pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1/Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, and of the summoning order dated 11.08.2025. The complaint alleges drawing of cheque no. 944754 dated 9.4.2025 for Rs. 40,00,000/-, dishonoured 03.05.2025, memo served 5.5.2025, demand notice 15.5.2025, complaint 10.6.2025, summons 11.8.2025. Counsel urged that the mandatory enquiry under S. 202(1) Cr.P.C./S. 225(1) B.N.S.S. (per In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases U/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325, followed in Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Ltd., (2024) LawSuit(Bom) 325) was not conducted; the complainant is resident of Rampur, the applicant of Lucknow/Sitapur, and nothing on record shows the enquiry or compliance with the first proviso. With the concurrence of opposite party no.2's counsel and the AGA, the summoning order was set aside and the matter remitted to the court below for a fresh order; applicant to file certified copy of this order by 10.10.2025. Applications stand disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37064 of 2025

¶3

Madan Mohan Tiwari

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Singh, Ravi Kumar Singh, Shikhar Neelkanth Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 75

¶6

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Sri B.K. Pandey, on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Mohit Singh along with Sri Shikhar Neelkanth learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sagir Ahmad Senior Counsel assisted by Sri B.K. Pandey along with Sri Mohd. Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶10

A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavits and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶11

This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1371/2025 (Hardev Singh vs. Madan Mohan Tiwari), under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Khajuriya, District Rampur pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and also to quash the impugned summoning order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

¶12

The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 10.06.2025 by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no. 944754 dated 9.4.2025 of Rs.40,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to

¶13

NA528 No. 37064 of 2025

¶14

¶15

be dishonoured on 03.05.2025 returning dishonour cheque memo was served upon the opposite party no.2 on 5.5.2025 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 15.5.2025 and the complaint on 10.6.2025 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 11.8.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint would make it more than evident that the complainant happens to be the resident of Rampur whereas the applicant has been shown to be resident of Lucknow/Sitapur, according to him mandatory enquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C./Section 225 (1) B.N.S.S. has not been conducted, attention has been drawn towards paragraph 17 of the application.

¶17

Submission is that in view of the judgement of the Hon. Apex Court in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases U/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325 followed in Bansilal S. Kabra Vs. Global Trade Finance Limited & another: (2024) LawSuit(Bom) 325 , the Magistrate was under obligation to conduct a mandatory enquiry under Section 202 (1) of the Cr.P.C. which has not been done..

¶18

Sri Sageer Ahmad learned Senior Counsel appears for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that according to him the mandatory enquiry as per Section 202(1) Cr.P.C./ Section 225 (1) B.N.S.S. has not been conducted and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order from the stage of conducting enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

¶19

Learned AGA has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶20

I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

¶21

Apparently, from the complaint itself it is apparent that the applicant is the resident of Lucknow/Sitapur whereas the complainant is of Rampur and nothing is forthcoming with regard to conduction of enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C./Section 225(1) B.N.S.S. and also regarding the compliance of the first proviso of the said provision. Since it is the stand of the counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the order is set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

¶22

Accordingly the application is being decided in the following terms:.(a) summoning order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur is set aside, (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order, (c) for facilitation and early disposal the applicant shall submit the certified copy of the order passed today by 10.10.2025.

¶23

NA528 No. 37064 of 2025

¶24

¶25

14. The applications stand disposed of .

¶26

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶27

September 24, 2025 piyush

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madan Mohan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Siddhartha Dinesh Bhai @ Bhojak Siddharth vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Bahadur Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Dhangarh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajib Lochan Pal /Rajeev Lochan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another