Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Rajesh Kukreja – Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr. – Opposite Party(s)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2776 of 2013
Decided On : 28-01-2026
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The complaint was filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey, alleging offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and IPC, regarding dishonoured cheques issued in favour of Hotel Paradise (!) (!) .
The core issue pertains to the authority and locus standi of the complainant to initiate the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined whether the complainant, represented by a third party, had the legal standing to file such a complaint (!) (!) .
The relevant legal provisions specify that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be filed by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. A third party, without such status, does not have the legal right to initiate proceedings unless they act as an authorized representative or holder in due course (!) (!) .
The court analyzed the facts and found that the complaint was filed by a third party who was neither the payee nor a holder in due course of the cheque. As such, the complaint lacked the necessary legal standing (!) .
The court distinguished the facts of this case from other cases where the complaint was filed by a person with proper authority or legal standing, emphasizing that mere indirect involvement or contractual relationships do not confer locus standi to file a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) .
The court noted that while the trial court initially raised a question regarding the complainant's authority, it ultimately proceeded to summon the accused without adequately addressing the lack of locus standi. This oversight was deemed a procedural irregularity (!) (!) .
Consequently, the court held that the complaint filed by the third party was not maintainable and that the order summoning the accused was unjustified. The impugned order was therefore quashed (!) .
The revision was allowed, and the earlier order was set aside, emphasizing that only parties with proper legal standing—payees or holders in due course—may initiate proceedings under the Act (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of establishing legal standing before filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and clarifies that third-party complaints are generally impermissible unless the third party qualifies as a holder in due course or acts with proper authorization (!) (!) .
Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly (!) .
These points collectively reflect the court’s reasoning and conclusion that the complaint filed by a third party lacking the requisite legal standing was invalid, leading to the quashing of the order summoning the accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint background and parties involved. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments about locus standi and authority. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. requirements for filing a complaint under n.i. act. (Para 8 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. distinguishable facts from cited precedent. (Para 12) |
| 5. order quashing the previous ruling. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. Heard Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ankur Kushwaha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State/opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.
2. This revision under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist - Rajesh Kukreja with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by M.M. VIIIth, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1091/2012 (M/s. Krishna Hotel Versus Rajesh Kukreja), in the ends of justice.”
3. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 8.8.2012 was filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey wife of Sri Virendra Dubey, against Rajesh Kukreja, Director, Mangalam Restaurant and Hotel Pvt. Ltd., son of Ghanshamdas, for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988, Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The complainant filed an affidavit dated 8.8.2012 to be read under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as her statement. The trial court vide its order dated 21.11.2012 observed that perusal of the records shows that a complaint has been filed by the M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through partner Smt. Saroj Dubey whereas cheque nos. 115261, 115262, 115263, 115264, 199008, 199009, 199010, 199011, 199013, 199014 and 199015 all of Rs.2,00,000/- each, dated 15.04.2012 have been drawn in favour of Hotel Paradise whereas the complaint has been filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through partner Smt. Saroj Dubey, whereas the complaint had to be filed by Hotel Paradise through its representative. It further directed that the complainant by the next date should clarify the same. Subsequently vide order impugned dated 26.7.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar. The court concerned after considering the complaint, the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that offence under N.I. Act is made out against Rajesh Kukreja and thus summoned him under the said section. The said order is thus under challenge before this Court.
4. Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 dated 16.12.2013 and rejoinder affidavit by the revisionist to the same dated 24.2.2014 have been filed which are on the record.
5. The dispute thus in the present matter relates to cheque nos. 115261, 115262, 115263, 115264, 199008, 199009, 199010, 199011, 199013, 199014 and 199015 all of Rs.2,00,000/- each, dated 15.04.2012, drawn on Bank of India, Karolbagh Branch, New Delhi issued in favour of Hotel Paradise by Mangalam Restaurant & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
6. The argument in crux of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the proceedings of the present matter were initiated on the basis of a complaint dated 08.08.2012 filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey adult wife of Sri Virendra Dubey against the revisionist under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and INDIAN PENAL CODE in which the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, VIIIth, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 21.11.2012 directed the complainant to clarify the fact that cheques in issue were drawn in the name of Hotel Paradise but the complaint has been filed by M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey whereas the said complaint should have been filed by Hotel Paradise or its authorized agent. It is submitted that subsequently trial court co
A third-party complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable unless filed by the payee or holder in due course.
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
Payee - The person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid, is called the payee.
The sufficiency of a legal notice under the N.I. Act does not require specific formulations, and a managing partner can send notice on behalf of the firm.
When such amendment was brought in 2015 and inserted section 142(2) of the NI Act, the very contention of the petitioner that the Bijapur Court is not having jurisdiction to try the complaint filed f....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; unregistered firm competent for s138 NI Act complaint; ss118/139 presumptions arise on cheque admission, rebuttable by evidence; subsequent payments do ....
Punishment under Section 138 of Act is not a means of seeking retribution but a means to ensure payment of money.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
