Rajeev Billa vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41009 of 2025

¶3

Rajeev Billa

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishika Raj Singhal, Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge(SD), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2023 (Shivkumar Gupta Vs. Rajeev Billa) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, as well as all consequential proceedings thereon.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that cheque in question of Rs. 12,50,000/- was dishonoured and as a result of the same complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that by the impugned order dated 18.9.2025 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is directed to be deposited under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act being four percent of the cheque amount. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that while passing the impugned order the court concerned has not considered the merits of the case in proper perspective and further the financial condition of the applicant has also not been considered. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the case of the applicant a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- was taken as loan by the applicant from the opposite party no. 2 and three cheques being Cheque No. 003983, 003994 and 003999 of HSBC Bank, Noida was given as security to the aforesaid loan transaction. The aforesaid cheques were signed blank

¶11

NA528 No. 41009 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

and handed over to the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 have filled the amount and thereafter has deposited the same which has been dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in respect of the aforesaid loan transaction dispute, suit for injunction was also filed before the competent court on 28.7.2020 with a prayer to injunct opposite party no. 2 for misusing the cheque.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the case of opposite party no. 2 was to the effect that there was a transaction for purchase of property and an advance amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- was given by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant and when the aforesaid transaction of purchase of property could not be finalized, the amount in question of Rs. 12,50,000/- was returned by the disputed cheque which has been dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the cheque in question was never issued in respect of the aforesaid transaction of purchase of property in fact cheque was issued in respect of the loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- which has been taken. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been returned to the opposite party no. 2 by the applicant, therefore, the remaining amount is to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque in question has been misused by the opposite party no. 2.

¶16

Matter requires consideration.

¶17

Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

¶18

Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within three weeks.

¶19

List this case in the week commencing 2.2.2026.

¶20

In view of the fact that applicant does not dispute the liability of payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- before this Court nor details have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 528 BNSS with regard to the financial position of the applicant, as an interim measure, it is provided that amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be deposited by the applicant with the court concerned within thirty days from today and

¶21

NA528 No. 41009 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

would be subject to final decision of this Court.

¶24

In the event, the amount as directed by the present order is deposited by the applicant with the court concerned, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 18.9.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge(SD), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2023 (Shivkumar Gupta Vs. Rajeev Billa) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad shall remain stayed against the applicant. In default, the court concerned would be at liberty to enforce the order in accordance with law. The proceedings of the court concerned shall go on in accordance with law.

¶25

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶26

October 27, 2025 VMA

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Billa v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Billa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Sahani vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahavir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu Singh Alias Vijayveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwakar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banty @ Deepak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parvej vs State of U.P. and 3 Others