Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Rudra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 6506 of 2023
Decided On : 19-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dhruv Mathur, Inam Uddin Ahmed, Shubham Tripathi
For the Respondent: Suresh Chandra Shukla

The court quashed criminal proceedings under the IPC due to mala fide intent behind filing the complaint, after a valid earlier complaint was filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504 and 506 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139, and 118 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Proceedings quashed due to mala fide intention in filing a counter complaint following the applicant's complaint under the NI Act for cheque dishonor. The judicial magistrate failed to apply due care in evaluating evidence leading to improper summoning. The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of allegations before summoning an accused and recognized the applicant's earlier complaint as having precedence due to its established legal credibility. (Paras 1-15)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Legislated guidelines on quashing of cases. The court outlined criteria for quashing under abuse of process of law principles. The court held that a delay without explanation in filing complaints could impact the credibility of the prosecution case. The failure of the defence to substantiate claims led to the conclusion that the new complaint served as a retaliatory tactic. (Paras 11-14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant's complaint against opposite party no.2 stemmed from a dishonored cheque issued as part of a settlement related to a business transaction. The dishonor was met with the opposite party's counter-complaints against the applicant. The trial court ruled on the matter under the NI Act leading to conviction of the opposite party.

Findings of Court:
The court found the subsequent complaint filed by opposite party no.2 was a counter action lacking in merit and intended to exert pressure post the applicant's earlier successful prosecution.

Issues: The court addressed whether the magistrate's summoning order was justified in light of the proceedings conducted previously and clarified the standards for initiating criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that when the defence fails to undermine the presumption of a debt under the NI Act, the initial complaint remains valid. It ruled that the later complaint filed in retaliation was indefensible.

Result: Application allowed; proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. court's analysis and observations. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 , 14)
2. background details of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments presented by the applicant. (Para 6 , 9 , 10)
4. key legal principles and precedent. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. final ruling and quashing of proceedings. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by S/Sri Shubham Tripathi and Inam Uddin Ahmed for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I appearing for State-opposite party no.1. However, counsel for opposite party no.2 is not present even in revised call.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3394 of 2019, Krishna Lal Sharma Vs. Rudra Pratap Singh , under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 26.06.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.

3. It is a case of the applicant that in respect to a business transaction between the applicant and one Mr. Mukesh Sharma with regard to a property situated in Lucknow, opposite party no.2 stood as surety for Mukesh Sharma, who entered into a settlement dated 10.03.2017 with the applicant. It is said that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid settlement, it is apparent that it was agreed with respect to Rs.90,00,000/- by means of the settlement dated 10.03.2017, wherein opposite party no.2 admitted his liability and agreed to provide nine undated cheques of Rs.10,00,000/- each and the same were provided to the applicant so that the applicant could encash the cheques as and when required. It is further said that thereafter the applicant presented one cheque, which was returned unpaid on 02.03.2019. Subsequently, the applicant presented the remaining eight cheques dated 02.04.2019 on 02.04.2019 for clearance before H.D.F.C. Bank, Safdarjung Enclave Branch, New Delhi. All the said cheques were returned unpaid by HDFC Bank with an endorsement that 'stop payment instruction issued by opposite party no.2’.

4. It is said that on account of non-payment of the legally admissible debt, the applicant initiated the process of prosecuting opposite party no.2 under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act"). Thereafter, the applicant issued a demand notice dated 26.04.2019 under Section 138 of NI Act, which was duly received by opposite party no.2 on 29.04.2019. On receiving the said notice, opposite party no.2 instead of making the payment, sent a reply on 11.05.2019 thereby denying the contents of the legal notice dated 26.04.2019. Thereafter, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Court, New Delhi, which was registered as Case No.11981 of 2019 and the trial court vide order dated 24.07.2019 summoned opposite party no.2.

5. It is further said that upon gaining the knowledge that summons have been issued against him, opposite party no.2 started filing complaints against the applicant before the police authorities in Lucknow in order to implicate him in a false case and to escape from liability by pressurizing him. When nothing was done, on 22.08.2019 opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lucknow, on which the Magistrate called for a report from the concerned police station. On 25.08.2019, the concerned police station filed its report specifically mentioning that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed after the applicant filed Complaint Case No.11981 of 2019, under Section 138 of the NI Act against opposite party no.2. However, the Magistrate concerned without proper application of his judicial mind and without considering the report submitted by the police on 25.08.2019, proceeded to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as a complaint case vide order dated 30.09.2019. T hereafter, on 28.03.2022, statements of two witnes