The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 138 and Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in determining the validity of a complaint under Section 138 and the consequences of material alteration in a negotiable instrument.

JUDGMENT :

1. As per the office report dated 09.05.2022 & report of S.H.O., P.S. Gomtinagar, District Lucknow dated 25.02.2022, the notice has already been served on the opposite party No.4, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed with the prayer to quash the revisional order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Room No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.828 of 2014 as well as summoning order dated 22.06.2013 and subsequent proceedings and orders passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Room No.28, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3174 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant approached before this Court against the summoning order dated 22.06.2013 in Complaint Case No.3174 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow which was challenged in petition (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3128 of 2014 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to file revision before the court of Session against the summoning order. He further submitted that in the aforesaid application, this Court also observed that in the case of Rajendra Prasad Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Crl. Misc. Case No.2911 of 2014 it is observed that against the order of revisional court, application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) can be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant filed revision by challenging the summoning order, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.828 of 2014 in the Court of Session, Lucknow and was transferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Thereafter, notice was issued to the complainant, but no any objection was filed and the matter was heard and decided by way of impugned order dated 21.05.2018 rejecting the revision by ignoring the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act. He further submitted that in the complaint in question, it is alleged by the complainant that for construction of house of the applicant, bricks and other building material worth Rs.65,00,000/- was supplied to the applicant and in lieu thereof, the applicant made the part payment of the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-through Cheque No.506562 of ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar Branch, Lucknow, dated 15.02.2013, but when it was presented in the Bank for clearance, the said cheque was returned with the remark "Alterations in date". He further submits that legal notice was given by the counsel for the complainant in which this fact is stated that the cheque was returned due to alteration in the date. In the aforesaid notice, reply was given by the applicant. He further submitted that house of the applicant was constructed in the year of 2004 and completion certificate was issued by Architect on 25.03.2004. He further submitted that father of the complainant, namely, Shri N.P. Singh was working as Government servant and as part time, he was also associated with the real estate business. One plot was shown by Shri N.P. Singh to the applicant and for the purchase of said plot, as an advance, two cheques bearing No.506561 and 506562 were handed over by the applicant to him, but later on, idea for purchasing the said plot was dropped by the applicant and father of the complainant informed to applicant that the aforesaid two cheques were lost. Thereafter, the applicant informed in writing to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow on 08.04.2011 and also informed to the Manager of ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on the same day about missing of cheques. He further submitted that by way of interpolation in the dates of cheque, one cheque was represented by the complainant before the bank, which was returned due to alterat