Dismissed¶30

Gajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026NA528/3400/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Deepak Verma, J. (April 20, 2026) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 3400 of 2026, Gajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another — dismissed. Section 528 BNSS quashing; section 138/139 Negotiable Instruments Act; complaint case no.5823 of 2023; summoning order dated 10.05.2024; ACJM/CJ (S/D) Maharajganj; cheque of Rs.14 lacs returned 'account closed'; lost cheque FIR; disputed questions of fact; pre-trial quashing not permissible; statutory presumption under Section 139; Sri Om Sales 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2897; Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan; Maruti Udyog; Rangappa; Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel; charge framing listed 29.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined at this stage. ¶12

Gajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.5823 of 2023 (Madan Yadav Vs. Gajendra Yadav) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the summoning order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S/D), Maharajganj, is liable to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The allegation in the complaint being under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, prima facie an offence is made out against the applicant; the impugned order is just and proper and no interference is warranted.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined at this stage.

¶12

Key takeaways

It is an admitted case that the cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of opposite party No.2; on presentation before the bank it was returned with the observation 'account closed', and the Court observed that the applicant's intention since the beginning was mischievous, to cheat the complainant.ratio¶15
In view of the Apex Court's judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court and the application is dismissed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed. Applicant sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.5823 of 2023 (Madan Yadav Vs. Gajendra Yadav) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj) and the summoning order dated 10.05.2024 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S/D), Maharajganj, contending that his cheque for Rs.14 lacs was lost (FIR lodged) and the allegations were false and baseless. Held (Deepak Verma, J.): the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined at that stage; it is an admitted case that the cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of opposite party No.2 and, on presentation, was returned with the observation 'account closed', the applicant's intention since the beginning being mischievous, to cheat the complainant; the order sheet showed the accused's version recorded and the case posted for 29.07.2025 for framing of charge; the allegation being under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, prima facie offence was made out. Following Sri Om Sales Vs. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2897, and relying on Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (a Section 138 complaint should not be quashed at the pre-trial stage on disputed questions of fact in the face of the Section 139 presumption), no interference was warranted; application dismissed (April 20, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3400 of 2026

¶3

Gajendra Yadav

¶4

	Versus .....	Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Piyush Patel, Pradeep	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 74

¶6

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Piyush Patel, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.5823 of 2023 (Madan Yadav Vs. Gajendra Yadav) under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Nichlaul, DistrictMaharajganj as well as summoning order dated 10.05.2024, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S/D) Maharajganj.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that it is alleged in the complaint that applicant opened a bank account on the request of complainant in Grahak Seva Kendra, after collecting the money, he deposited the collected amount in the account and thereafter, transferred the amount to the family members, thereafter, applicant handed over the cheque for amount Rs.14 lacs and when complainant deposited the amount in the bank, the same was dishonored. He further submitted that no offence under the alleged sections is made out against the applicant. Allegation in the complaint is false and baseless and not supported by any evidence. There is no occasion to issue the cheque in favour of opposite party no.2/complainant. By supplementary affidavit, it is submitted that applicant's cheque was lost and in this regard he lodged an FIR and as per statement of independent witnesses, they disclosed the name of opposite party No.2. Cognizance and summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Whole proceedings against the applicant is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that the submission raised by applicant's counsel, are disputed question of facts, which cannot be entertained at this stage. Moreover, FIR lodged after lodging of the complaint by opposite party no.2.

¶12

Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel, the submission raised by applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts which cannot be examined at this stage. Moreover, it is admitted case that the cheque has been issued by the applicant in

¶13

NA528 No. 3400 of 2026

¶14

¶15

favour of opposite party No.2 and when cheque was presented before bank the same was returned with observation that "account closed". The intention of applicant since beginning was mischievous only to cheat to complainant the cheque has been issued. On perusal of order sheet, it is apparent that accused version has been recorded and case was posted on 29.07.2025 for framing of charges but non appearance of applicant, charge could not be framed. Allegation alleged in the complaint is under the 139 of N.I. Act, as such, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The order impugned is just and proper. No interference is warranted.

¶16

The Hon. Apex Court in Sri Om Sales Vs. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2897 has considered following judgments:

¶17

"14. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Narender and others, this Court held that a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in entertaining and accepting the plea of the accused at the initial stage of the proceedings and quash the complaint.

¶18

15. Likewise, in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, it was held that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It was observed that such a presumption is rebuttable, and the accused must raise its defense in the trial.

¶19

16. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, it was held that the High Court should not quash the criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act by going into disputed questions of fact regarding the cheque in question being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Moreso, when Section 139 of the N.I. Act raises a statutory presumption as regards the cheque being issued for discharge of debt or liability."

¶20

In Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) , this Court held that when there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, it would not be judicious to carry out a detailed enquiry on a disputed question of fact at a pre-trial stage to quash the complaint. The relevant observations in the judgment are extracted below:

¶21

"17. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defense without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint.

¶22

18. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pretrial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an unmerited advantage in the criminal process. Also, because of the legal presumption, when the

¶23

NA528 No. 3400 of 2026

¶24

¶25

cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favor of the complainant / prosecution, as the accused will have the opportunity to adduce defense evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption.

¶26

19. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited."

¶27

The Hon. Apex Court while deciding aforementioned case, in paragraphs 13 and 18 has observed that:

¶28

"13. However, the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482, proceeded to test whether the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In our view, such an exercise was unwarranted because, under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence led in trial. A fortiori, the said issue can appropriately be decided either at the trial, or later, upon conclusion of trial, by the appellate/ revisional court."

¶29

"18. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions of this Court as also the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act, we are of the considered view that the High Court committed an error by conducting a roving enquiry, at the pre-trial stage, as regards the cheque being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Such an exercise, in our view, was not merited in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code more so when the complaint allegations disclosed that the cheque was issued for discharge of liability. As fulfillment of the necessary ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act are prima facie made out from the complaint allegations, in our view, neither the summoning order nor the complaint could have been quashed by the High Court at the pre-trial stage."

¶30

In view of the Apex Court's Judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶31

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶32

April 20, 2026 Nitin Verma

¶33

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Goyal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ilyas Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishtiyak Ansari vs State of U.P. and Another

Jawahar Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sharif Vs State of U.P. and Another