Ambrish Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

Ambrish Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice ordered to the private respondent; case listed in the second week of March, 2026; as an interim measure, no coercive action against the applicant till the next date. Final decision on the quashing prayer deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.10.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sitapur (complaint case no. 2362 of 2018, section-138 NI Act) and the order dated 25.07.2025 of the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 4, District Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 05/2024 should be quashed, on the ground that the registered partnership firm in whose favour the cheque was issued was neither served notice nor arrayed as a party, contrary to the provisions of Sections 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act.

Court's answer

Having considered the contents of the impugned order, the Court found that the cheque was issued in favour of the firm but the firm has not been arrayed as a party; in such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, until the next date of hearing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 14 — Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.; Application U/S 482 No. 490 of 2026 (Ambrish Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P.), decided January 29, 2026. The applicant seeks quashing of (i) the order dated 27.10.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sitapur in complaint case no. 2362 of 2018 under section-138 Negotiable Instrument Act (pending before the CJM) and (ii) the order dated 25.07.2025 of the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 4, District Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 05/2024. Counsel submitted that the cheque was issued in favour of a registered partnership firm which was neither given notice nor made a party to the complaint, invoking Sections 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act. The Court observed that the firm had not been arrayed as a party, held the matter required consideration, issued notice to the private respondent, listed the case for the second week of March 2026, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicant till the next date. Interim relief only; final decision pending. No precedent engaged.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 490 of 2026

Ambrish Kumar Dixit

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar, Raj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard.

This application has been filed with the following prayer:-

"To quash the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 4, District- Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 05/2024 as well as to quash the Impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate District Sitapur,in case no. 2362 of 2018, under section- 138 Negotiable Instrument Act P.S -Kotwali Nagar, Lucknow which is presently pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sitapur."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is admitted case of the parties that cheque was issued in favour of the registered partnership firm, but neither any notice was given to the firm nor the firm was made party in the complaint. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 141 of N.I. Act, company must be a necessary party and the person, who is responsible to the company for conducing business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense. He next submits that learned trial Court committed error in passing impugned orders without considering the provisions of Section 141 and 142 of N.I. Act.

Considering the contents of the impugned order, it is evident that cheque was issued in favour of the firm, but the firm has not been arrayed as party. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

A482 No. 490 of 2026

2

Issue notice to the private respondent.

List this case in the second week of March, 2026.

Till the next date, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

January 29, 2026

Arpan

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