Bindeshwari Prasad @ Vindeshwari Prasad Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 66 of 2026

¶3

Bindeshwari Prasad @ Vindeshwari Prasad Soni

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as also Sri Anshuman Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The applicant has filed the present application with the following main prayer:

¶11

"... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the false, fabricated, and unreasoned impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Apar District and Session Judge Court no. 6 Ayodhya in criminal appeal no. 68 of 2024 Bindeshwari Prasad versus State of U.P. whereby the learned court below has rejected the application no. 21 (Ba) filed by the petitioner under section 94 of the B.N.S.S arbitrarily and illegally, and further be pleased to allow the application no. 21(Ba) filed by the petitioner, directing the learned court below to summon the relevant manual register from the opp. party no. 3 the interest of justice."

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque no. 46372 and 46373 bearing Account no. 385102010880030, Union Bank Branch Moti Branch, Faizabad, relates with the applicant, but the same has never

¶13

NA528 No. 66 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

been issued to the opp. party no. 2. In fact, on 5.10.2015 this cheque was lost somewhere. On 6.10.2015, the applicant had made a missing report to the local police station and also intimated the branch Office of the opp. party no.3, intimating that the above mentioned cheque has been lost somewhere. The missing report in respect of the above mentioned cheque has also been published in daily news paper. On 23.09.2016 he placed the same in his bank and on 27.09.2016 it was bounced due to insufficient funds. The opp. party no. 2 has issued the legal notice dated 4.10.2016 to the applicant with the concocted facts that he had borrowed Rs. 3,25,000/ Rupees. The applicant has made reply disclosing the facts that the cheque has been lost and he has made the complaint to the local police and bank also. On 3.11.2016 the opp. party no. 2 filed the complaint case no. 436/2022 under section 138 N.I Act with the allegation that the applicant was tenant of the shop of the opp. party no. 2 and he had taken Rs. 3,25,000/ and for repayment the applicant had issued the cheque to him.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that on 1.12.2018, the applicant has filed the complaint case no. 7981 / 2018 against the opp. party no. 2 and other persons under section 190 of the Cr.P.C Bindeshwari Prasad Versus Ashok Kumar Kanodia for cheating and misusing the lost cheque of the applicant. The learned court below after considering the facts and circumstances found that the opp. party no. 2 has misused the cheque by filing compliant case under section 138 N.I act. After considering the fraud / cheating committed by the opp. party no. 2, the learned Magistrate has summoned the opp. party no. 2 under section 405 I.P.C Police station Kotwali Nagar Faizabad vide order dated 4.2.2020. The revision no. 283/2025 was filed by the opposite party No. 2 and the learned court below has been pleased to held that, the opp. party no. 2 has dishonestly misused the lost cheque vide order dated 10.11.2025.

¶17

The learned counsel also submitted that in the complaint case under section 138 N.I Act, the applicant has appeared and placed the documentary evidence along with the Fehrist i.e 1- Letters dated 6.10.2015 made to the Police and Bank Manager, publication, letter dated 18.6.2018, the copy of the order dated 4.2.2020. The applicant has also

¶18

NA528 No. 66 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

filed application under section 311 Cr.P.C for consideration of additional evidence, but the learned court below has rejected the same on the memo of the application vide order dated 9.7.2024 illegally and arbitrarily. The learned court below has not passed the order on bar code order sheet and committed judicial illegality. The learned court below without considering and examining the evidence on record, i.e. letter 6.10.2015 submitted by the applicant to police and to the Bank, passed the order with conviction and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/ vide order dated 15.7.2024. Feeling aggrieved and challenging the order dated 15.7.2024, On 6.8.2024 the applicant has filed the criminal appeal no. 68 of 2024, Bindeshwari Prasad versus State of U.P. and others. The learned appellate Court granted bail to the applicant and suspended the conviction vide order dated 6.8.2024. On 11.11.2024, the applicant has filed the application under section 94 of the B.N.S.S before the learned Addl. District and Session Judge, Court no. 6, in the aforesaid criminal appeal for summoning and verifying the manual register from the Bank of India, branch Motibag Ayodhya. Section 94 B.N.S.S has been mentioned wrongly in place of section 91 of Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicant filed the amendment application dated 12.9.2025. On 19.8.2025, the opp. party no. 2 has also filed the objection against the application dated 11.11.2024.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per section 94 of B.N.S.S, the court can summon the documents at any stage. It is also submitted that Bank Maunal register is a routine record maintained in ordinary course of business and does not fall under privileged documents barred by section 94(3) B.N.S.S. As per the Banker's Book Evidence Act 1891, of section 5 and 6, the Judge can pass the order of inspection of books.

¶22

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the application filed by the applicant has been rejected without application of mind and has submitted that the applicant's information regarding missing of cheque in the Bank is the vital information, which should be summoned by the appellate court.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. submits that it is case under Negotiable Instrument Act and the order has been passed after looking into each and every aspect of

¶24

NA528 No. 66 of 2026

¶25

4

¶26

the matter. The order, impugned herein, is just, legal and valid, warranting no interference by this Hon'ble Court.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

After going through the record, I find that earlier the applicant had given application before the trial court on 09.07.2024 for the same prayer which has been in the present application and the said application was rejected on 09.07.2024 by the trial court making observation that the argument had been concluded and the case was fixed for final judgment and in the meantime application was given by the applicant at the belated stage, therefore, it was rejected. The other issue is also very important that the applicant's counsel is unable to point out that as to why the application should be allowed by the appellate court. The document pertaining to the information given to the Bank that the cheque was lost, is not important document, which is to be seen by the appellate court. The stage is already over. The applicant had ample opportunity to lead the evidence before the trial court, but during entire trial period he did not file such application, rather, it was filed at the time when the matter was heard finally. The information of missing report mentioned in the register of the Bank has no role and it is not required to be seen by the appellate court. The cheque which has been presented before the Bank, if it is dishonoured, the court has to summon the relevant register or the official to verify the fact. The other information/document given to the Bank has no relevance, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. The application is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, rejected .

¶29

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶30

January 13, 2026

¶31

A.Nigam

¶32

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

Bindeshwari Prasad @ Vindeshwari Prasad Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Bindeshwari Prasad @ Vindeshwari Prasad Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranjal Poddar vs Shivani Gupta

Ravinandan Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Himanshu Sunilkumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prem Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Alamdar Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. the Station House Officer Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another