Dwarika Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

This application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Additional Court no.1, Lucknow in Criminal Complaint Case no.52576 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Singh vs. Dwarika Prasad Gupta) filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 had floated an advertisement for purchase of plots in the scheme, namely, Trustus Cubic City and Trustus Dream City, in daily newspaper Amar Ujala on 10.12.2017. The applicant after seeing the advertisement dated 10.12.2017 and for better future prospect of his family decided to purchase plot in Lucknow and as such the applicant met with the opposite party no.2 regarding purchase of land and during course of meeting, opposite party no.2 had shown layout plan which includes number and size of plots and thus, the applicant had booked plot no.CP25 and CP26 and given a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- through cheque no.006616 on 11.02.2018 and a sum of Rs.51,000/-through cheque no.006617 on 19.02.2018 and opposite party no.2 had given receipt dated 19.02.2018 for Rs.51,000/-. It has been further submitted that on 19.03.2018, the applicant had paid Rs.6,00,000/- through cheque/RTGS and after paying

¶12

A482 No. 3021 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

the aforesaid amount, the company, namely, Trustus Infraland Developers Pvt. Ltd. has executed a sale deed to the applicant for a sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- and the said sale deed was duly registered on 21.03.2018 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mohanlalganj in Book No.1, Volume No.9008 at Pages 67/84 at Serial No.5247.

¶15

Further, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 21.03.2018, the applicant had given cheque no.006620, 006621, 006622, 006623, 006624 each amounting Rs.1,00,000/- of Central Bank of India as a security cheque for plot no.CP26 and the company has issued a letter dated 21.03.2018 to the applicant, containing therein that the company has received the aforementioned cheques as security cheques. It is to point out that the applicant had given the aforesaid cheques undated.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a perusal of complaint as well as statement of opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C./223 BNSS reveals that opposite party no.2 and applicant were having good connection due to business transaction and the applicant used to meet opposite party no.2 regularly and this fact is totally false and concocted, so that the security cheques in question may be forged and presented for encashment. The applicant is running a medical shop in Bhagwatiganj locality of District- Balrampur and opposite party no.2 is a real estate businessman. The applicant met with the O.P. No.2 in pursuance to the advertisement published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala regarding scheme floated by the O.P. No.2 and as such the cheques in question wwere given to the O.P. No.2 as security cheque for purchase of plot no.CP26 and the filing of complaint by the O.P. No.2 is sheer abuse of process of law.

¶17

It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that that the applicant has already filed case against O.P. No.2 on 02.08.2023 and as such there was no occasion for giving cheque in question to the O.P. No.2 by the applicant, in fact, O.P. No.2 has forged/manipulated by entering the date and misused the five security cheques which were given to him on 21.03.2018. It has been submitted that the aforesaid undated five cheques no.006620, 006621, 006622, 006623, 006624 each amounting Rs.1,00,000/- of Central Bank of India, were given as a

¶18

A482 No. 3021 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

security to the O.P. No.2 for purchase of plot no.CP26 on 21.03.2018 and after cancellation of deal for purchase of plot no.CP26, O.P. No.2 did not return the same on several requests being made by the applicant, instead, the O.P. No.2 by committing forgery and manipulation used the security cheques for lodging malicious and false compliant against the applicant in order to exert pressure upon the applicant as the applicant has already filed cases against the O.P. no.2 for the cheques which were issued by the O.P. no. 2 to the applicant. It has been submitted that that the cheque in question was a security cheque in connection with purchase of plot no.CP26, but, the O.P. No.2 did not sell the same and he cancelled the deal and as such, no question arises of any legal liability or liquidation of any liability of the applicant towards the O.P. No.2. He further submits that for the sake of argument if it is deemed that the cheque was issued by the applicant, even then no liability rests with the applicant as no deal/purchase regarding plot no.CP26 took place between the applicant and O.P. No.2. He has placed reliance upon Para 13 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and another (Criminal Appeal No.830 of 2014), decided on 7.4.2014. He has also place reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 INSC 399 .

¶21

Learned AGA has submitted that the question of fact cannot be decided by this Court. He submits that if security cheque has been issued, then the same comes under the liability of Section 138 of N.I. Act. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sripati Singh (Since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2022) 18 SCC 614 .

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and going through the complaint (Annexure-2), this Court finds that there appears business transaction between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 transferred the amount in the account of the applicant and in lieu thereof, Cheque no.006624 of Rs.1,00,000/- of Central Bank of India, Balrampur Branch was given to opposite party no.2 and thereafter, he had submitted that said cheque in the bank, which was dishonoured. Thereafter notice was given and after

¶23

A482 No. 3021 of 2026

¶24

4

¶25

following due procedure, complaint was filed. Whatever defence has been taken by learned counsel for the applicant, the same cannot be appreciated by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as these are disputed questions of fact, which can be decided after adducing the evidence on record. The cheque has been issued for discharge of liability or not is a disputed question of fact and after filing the complaint by opposite party no.2, this Court cannot decided whether the cheque has been issued under any liability or not. The opposite party no.2 has specifically stated in the complaint that he had advanced money in the account of the applicant and in lieu thereof, cheque was issued. All these questions can be decided by the trial court and certainly this Court cannot weigh the evidences here.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application is dismissed .

¶27

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶28

April 13, 2026

¶29

Sachin

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dwarika Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Similar cases

Dwarika Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sukumar Mallick vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kushagra Srivastava and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sumit Kanoujia vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajendra Pratap Devgiri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Laxmi Kant Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others