Vijay Ahuja vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3466 of 2026

Vijay Ahuja

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Bipin Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 53

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri M.A. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner(s) Vijay Ahuja , with the prayers to set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 and order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the ACJM, Khurja, Bulandshahr and learned court Additional Sessions Judge, Khurja, Bulandshahr respectively in Complaint Case No. 1477 of 2017 (Vinod Kumar Vs. Vijay Ahuja) and in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2023, (Vijay Ahuja Vs. State U.P. and another) respectively.

¶10

At the very outset an option was given to learned counsel for the petitioner to explore the possibility of getting the matter settled through mediation he submits that no chances of mediation.

¶11

The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 14.11.2017, under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 138 N.I. Act was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner alleging therein that Cheque No. 161586 dated 28.06.2017 for Rs. 63 lakh given by him was represented in bank for encashment which was returned unpaid on 26.09.2017 on the ground of insufficiency of funds. A legal notice dated 09.10.2017 was sent by speed post on 11.10.2017 which was delivered on 13.10.2027 to the accused as per tracking website of the Indian Post. Despite receipt and knowlege of the siad notice and cheque being dishonoured, the accused failed to pay the demanded amount within time and thus complaint is being filed on which he be summoned and punished as per. In the said complaint the evidence of the complainant on pre-summoning by affidavit under Section 200 Cr.P.C. dated 25.11.2017 was filed. The trial court concerned vide its order dated 18.12.2017 considered the complaint and the evidence of complainant and summoned the accused petitioner under

¶12

A227 No. 3466 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

Section 138 N.I. Act. A revision against the same was preferred by him which stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurja Bulandshahr. This petition for writ has thus been filed by the petitioner accused being unsatisfied by the order of summoning and judgment and order of the revisional court.

¶15

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque as given to the complainant was a cheque in security regarding which an undertaking was entered into between the parties on 18.09.2017 on an E- Stamp, copy of which is annexed as annexure 7 to the affidavit in support of the petition for writ, para 15 of the writ petition has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that thus by misusing the said cheque, the complainant presented the same in his bank which stood dishonoured and then gave him a notice and on non payment has filed the present complaint. It is submitted that the proceedings thus are totally abuse of process of law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State has been who has opposed the present petition and arguments as aforesaid.

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 138 N.I. Act. He has been summoned by the trial court and being unsatisfied he preferred a revision which stood dismissed by the revisional court. Thus being unsatisfied by both the orders he has preferred writ petition before this Court. The solitary ground as pleaded and argued that the said cheque was given as a security cheque. The petitioner places annexure 7 being an alleged undertaking between the parties dated 18.09.2017, the same is the defence of the petitioner which needs to be taken at the appropriate stage, if advised so. The same not cannot be considered at this stage. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen and considered.

¶18

In view of the same, the present petition for writ lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶19

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

March 19, 2026 M. ARIF

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Ahuja v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ahuja 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

Constable Satendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Niwas Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sumitra Devi and 2 Others vs Abdul Wahab @ Abbas

Richcredit Finance Private Limited vs Rishabh Gupta

Gajnafar Hussain @ Gaaffar Hussasin and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others