A bus owner sought quashing of a Section 138 NI Act complaint and summons, alleging the cheque was extracted at gunpoint. The court found no FIR was lodged, the complaint disclosed legal liability, and defences were for trial; the application lacked merit and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 937 of 2026
Uma Shankar Agarwal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
"For the facts, reason and circumstances as stated in accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 29813/2025 "Geeta Chauhan Vs. Uma Shankar Agarwal", pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bahraich, as well as summoning order dated 15.12.2025 issued by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bahraich, in misc. case no. 29813/2025 "Geeta Chauhan Vs. Uma Shankar Agarwal", Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich", in the interest of justice. (contained in Annexure No. 1)."
NA528 No. 937 of 2026
2
Registration No. UP43 T8661, and executed an agreement on 21.06.2019 for sale of the said bus in favour of the purchasers for a total consideration of Rs. 26,50,000.00. Out of the said amount, the remaining amount of Rs. 16,50,000.00 was agreed to be paid in monthly installments of Rs. 1,33,000.00 each. It was stipulated that in case of any default in payment of installments, the agreement would stand cancelled. The purchaser would have no claim over the vehicle, and the vehicle would be returned to the applicant. Thereafter, Rafiq and Ramu failed to pay the installments in time, therefore, the bus in question was taken by the petitioner from the purchasers with their mutual consent. Since then, neither Rafiq nor Ramu made any complaint before any authority. Later on, the said bus was sold to Awadhesh Kumar Singh and registration certificate (R.C.) was also transferred in his favour on 26.08.2020. It has been stated that after about six years of the said sale, the opposite party No. 2, alongwith four to five armed persons came to the shop of the petitioner on 14.05.2025 and at the gun point compelled him to sign an agreement on a Rs. 50.00 stamp paper, and also forced him to sign two undated cheques. The opposite party No. 2 claimed that she is the wife of Ramu and alleged in the said agreement that she had purchased the bus bearing Registration No. UP43 T8661, Model 2017, but its transfer could not be completed. In the coerced agreement it is further mentioned that the petitioner would return Rs. 8,00,000.00 to the opposite party No. 2, for which two post-dated cheques- one for Rs. 3,00,000.00 and another for Rs. 8,00,000.00 were forcibly obtained from the petitioner.
NA528 No. 937 of 2026
3
the cheque dated 14.08.2025 was presented before the Indian Bank, Branch Mewatipura, Civil Lines, Bahraich, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The cheque was returned on 29.09.2025 with the remark "funds insufficient." Thereafter opposite party no. 2 sent a legal notice through her counsel to the petitioner on 10.09.2025, demanding payment of the alleged outstanding amount, failing which she would take legal recourse. Thereafter opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich having misc. case no. 29813/2025.
NA528 No. 937 of 2026
4
cannot do mini trial and evidences can not be weighed here. The application is devoid of merits. The same is accordingly dismissed .
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
February 27, 2026
A.Nigam
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complaint under Section 138 NI Act and the summoning order should be quashed on the claim that the cheque was obtained under duress and there is no legally enforceable debt.
Whether the High Court can weigh evidence of legal liability at the quashing stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Uma Shankar Agarwal
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Geeta Chauhan
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
