Neeta Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

Neeta Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed: impugned orders dated 16.10.2024 (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5078/24) and 12.11.2023 (Complaint Case No. 5078/2024, Section 138 NI Act) set aside; matter remanded to the Magistrate for a fresh order on the delay condonation application after hearing both parties and inviting the petitioner's objection, to be passed within one month; parties to appear on 13.04.2026; no order on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the court below could stand where the application for condonation of delay (delay of about four months) in filing the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was allowed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Court's answer

The delay condonation application was decided by the court below without hearing the petitioner; on that ground the order dated 16.10.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5078/24 and the order dated 12.11.2023 in Complaint Case No. 5078/2024 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remitted to the concerned court to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and inviting objection from the petitioner on the condonation application (delay about four months); the order is to be passed within one month and parties were directed to appear on 13.04.2026.

Key takeaways

The order of this Court is confined to the ground that the delay condonation application was decided by the court below without hearing the petitioner; no order has been passed on merits.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Brij Raj Singh, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 2657 of 2026, decided 08.04.2026. Complaint Case No. 5078/2024 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (PS Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow) was filed by opposite party no.2 time-barred by about four months along with an application for condonation of delay; the Magistrate condoned the delay without hearing the applicant (order dated 16.10.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5078/24, with the order dated 12.11.2023 in the complaint case). Held: an opportunity of hearing must be afforded before a delay condonation application is decided; both orders set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh order after hearing both parties and inviting the petitioner's objection, to be passed within one month; no order on merits. The proposition, urged from Sunita Agarwal Vs. State of U.P., (2023) 1 DCR 655 and Sumit Deb Vs. Joy Deb, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 373, was not disputed by opposite party no.2.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2657 of 2026

Neeta Tripathi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manendra Nath Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 15

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

This court has passed the following order on 31.03.2026 :

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate has taken sole ground for interference in the impugned orders that the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 was time barred by about four months and the same was filed along with application for condonation of delay and the delay has been condoned without hearing the applicant.

He has submitted that the said practice has been deprecated in the judgments passed by this Court at Allahabad in Sunita Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2023) 1 DCR 655 and also by High Court of Tripura at Agartala in Sumit Deb Vs. Joy Deb and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 373.

Reliance has been placed on paragraphs 15, 16 and 19 of the judgment passed in Sumit Deb (Supra) and has been submitted

A482 No. 2657 of 2026

2

that the case of applicant is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgments and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the Magistrate.

Since, the order has been passed in favour of opposite party no.2, this Court cannot take any decision unless she is also heard.

Accordingly, issue notice to opposite party no.2, through speed post with registration and proof of delivery. Dasti, in addition, is also permitted. Steps be taken within two days.

Affidavit of service will be filed on the next date of listing.

List on 08.04.2026, as fresh, in top ten cases.

Office shall submit service report and postal tracking status.

The applicant is at liberty to mention the case for taking it up out of turn".

In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Ravi Kant Shukla, Advocate has put in appearance for opposite party No. 2 by filing his vakalatnama , which is taken on record. He has also not disputed the aforesaid legal proposition that the petitioner should be given right to be heard prior to condoning the delay.

In view of the aforesaid, order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Chamber No. 26, Lucknow, presently Court of Additional Court No. 1, Lucknow, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5078/24, and the order dated 12.11.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 5078/2024 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, are hereby set aside .

The matter is remitted back to the courts/Authorities, concerned, to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and inviting objection from the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay, which is about four months. The order will be passed within one month. Parties will appear before the Magistrate on

A482 No. 2657 of 2026

3

13.04.2026. The petitioner will appear through counsel.

It is made clear that this court has not passed order on merits. It has only passed order, which is limited to the extent that delay condonation application was decided by the court below without hearing the petitioner.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

April 8, 2026

A.Nigam

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench