Allowed

Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2026A482/6341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing a complaint under Section 138 NI Act for non-prosecution and the revisional order confirming it. Relying on a Division Bench ruling, the Court held that dismissal before summons is not under Section 256(1) CrPC. The matter was remanded for expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; complaint restored and remanded to trial court for expeditious disposal.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6341 of 2024

Pawan Kumar Agarwal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalit Kishore Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Case called out. List revised. As per Office Report dated 24.08.2024, notice upon opposite party no 2 has been served but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present application. However, Shri Lalit Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State are present. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to hear the instant application.

¶11

Heard Shri Lalit Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶12

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking setting aside of the revisional order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge, PC Act-2, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow (in short "revisional Court") in Criminal Revision No. 597 of 2023 as well as order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Additional Court, Court No.9, Lucknow (in short "trial Court") in Criminal Complaint No. 2328 of 2018, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

¶13

Shri Lalit Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by the applicant and cognizance was taken and the same was fixed for

¶14

A482 No. 6341 of 2024

¶15

¶16

22.10.2019 and the applicant could not appear on that date, therefore, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. Against order dated 22.10.2019, the applicant filed revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3099 of 2024 in re:Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu Vs. State Of U.P. And Another on 05.04.2025 and has submitted that in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed that stage of Section 256(1) CrPC is crucial to be seen in the case of proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act when the case is dismissed for want of prosecution before issuing summons and the said order amounts to acquittal under Section 256(1) CrPC.

¶18

The relevant para is quoted herein-below:-

¶19

"11. The reference and stress herein is given on the two provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The difference between Section 203 Cr.P.C. and Section 256 Cr.P.C. is of the stage of passing of an order therein. Under Section 203 Cr.P.C. an order is passed prior to taking of cognizance and summoning whereas the exercise of power under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is subsequent to issuance of summons. The admitted position in the present matter is that the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- IInd, Jaunpur is an order prior to issuance of summons and thus is an order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The stage of Section 256 Cr.P.C. has yet not arisen in the present matter and thus the question whether an order dismissing a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for want of prosecution will amount to acquittal under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. and whether the same can be challenged in appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. or is an order revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not arise in the present case. The said question is the first question in the reference.

¶20

12. In so far as the second question challenging the correctness of the judgement of Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.: Criminal Revision No. 3426 of 2005, decided on 04.09.2007 by a learned Single Judge is concerned, does not have relevance in the present matter since in the said case

¶21

A482 No. 6341 of 2024

¶22

¶23

although the complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 05.02.2004 passed by the trial court concerned but the same was after the accused therein were summoned for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, under Section 204 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 19.09.2002. The order thus therein was an order under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The second question thus also does not arise for consideration in the present matter."

¶24

In view of the aforesaid submission, it is admitted position that the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution at preliminary stage, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to set aside. The revisional order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the revisional Court and the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the trial Court are hereby set aside. The complaint is restored to its original number. Matter is remanded back to the trial Court to decide the complaint, expeditiously, taking note of Section 143(3) of NI Act which provides that every trial under this Section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶25

The application stands allowed.

¶26

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶27

April 9, 2026 Mohit Singh/-

¶28

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

Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepanshu Dudeja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Roop Narayan Tiwari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. and 2 Others

Uma Shankar Agrahari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramsawari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Juber Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rishi Raj Chauhan vs Prakhar Gupta