HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Waziullah .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ranjeet Kumar Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/I A.C.J.M., Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 15640 of 2021 (Naharika Singh versus Waziullah), Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the discharge application has been wrongly rejected and the revisionist has been wrongly summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is contended that the cheque in question pertains to an account that was already closed. It is further submitted that there is a series of litigations between the parties on one ground or another, whereas the present case relates specifically to Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that he had preferred an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S., being Application No. 10312 of 2025 (Waziullah versus State of U.P. and another). The said application was filed to quash the summoning order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 15640 of 2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was submitted before this Court that, post-dishonour of the cheque, the applicant was summoned on 07.10.2021; however, for reasons beyond his control, he could not join the proceedings, pursuant to which non-bailable warrants were issued. He sought time to file a recall application and prayed that no coercive action be taken until the recall application was decided.

4. This Court, after considering the overall facts of the case, disposed of the application with a direction to the applicant to submit a recall application by 31.07.2025, and further directed that, upon such application being filed, the court below shall decide the same with utmost expedition. The summoning order was not quashed by this Court.

5. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, the recall application was filed, which has been rejected by a detailed and reasoned order dated 03.01.2026. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist.

6. The transaction in dispute is the subject matter of trial. The contention of the revisionist that the bank account had already been closed and, therefore, the question of issuing the cheque dated 15.12.2020 does not arise, is denied by the complainant. It has been submitted that Cheque No. 589457, which was allegedly provided as a guarantee in the year 2014–15, has been misused by the complainant to file the present criminal complaint. Whether the account was open or closed does not conclusively establish that a cheque could not have been issued by the revisionist from a closed account. It is not denied that the cheque in question pertains to the account of the revisionist. The nature of the cheque and whether it has been used or misused are matters to be determined during trial.

7. The basic ingredients of section 138 of N.I. Act provides that:-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended