Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Singh vs Chandanlal Dixit on 13 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63534
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1807 of 2024
Rakesh Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Chandanlal Dixit
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Rawat, Nilaya Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Lalit Kishore Pandey, Pawan Kumar Mishra, Sunil Kumar
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Nilaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Koshore Pandey, learned counsel for sole opposite party.
2. Learned counsel for sole opposite party has taken preliminary objection that earlier the petitioner has challenged the criminal proceedings and summoning order in Application under Section 482 No. 84 of 2021, which was decided, vide order dated 13.1.2021 and the petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may approach before the subordinate court and may move discharge application, which was rejected, which is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has taken plea for maintainability that once the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of with a direction to move discharge application the stage of challenging the same is not available to the petitioner and he has further submitted that discharge application is not maintainable under Negotiable Instruments Act in view of Section 143, which is quoted below:-
"143. Power of Court to try cases summarily-
-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials:
Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees:
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code.
-
The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing.
-
Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint."
4. He has submitted that it is a summary proceedings and the provision of Cr.P.C. from 262 to 265 has been adopted by the court below and there is no provision of discharge. Since the discharge application is not maintainable under N.I. Act, therefore the application challenging the said order is not maintainable. He has further submitted that all the grounds has already taken by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as mentioned above, which was decided on 13.1.2021 and once the petition was disposed of, if any ground is left, the same can be subject matter of review but certainly this Court may not look into.
5. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjeev Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another, passed in Crl. Revision No. 3418 of 2004 connected with Crl. Revision No. 3436 of 2004. For ready reference paras no. 6 and 7 of the said judgement are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended up-to-date) show that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which could be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheques. (The term of imprisonment has been raised from one year to two years by amending Act No. 55 of 2002). According to Section 2(w) of the Cr.P.C. "summons-case" means a ease relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case. The "warrant-case" has been denied in Section 2(x) of the Cr.P.C. which means 'a case relating to an offence term exceeding two years'. Thus, offence- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a summons-case. The trial of the summons-case is controlled by Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. where there is no provision for the discharge. Section 245, Cr.P.C., which has been applied by the Magistrate, relates to the trial of warrant-case which is controlled by Chapter XIX, Cr.P.C. which is not applicable to the present case which is a summons-case.
7. It appears from the record that when the accused appeared in pursuance of the summons, he applied for discharge under Section 245 (2), Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed. The approach of learned Magistrate is patently erroneous and against the law firstly, because the summoning order cannot be recalled and there is no provision for the discharge in a summons-case. The Magistrate has wrongly allowed the application by applying Section 245, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate should take care of the law while passing the order. Non-application of the mind in such matters puts the parties to unnecessary harassment by running from one Court to other Court."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had raised various grounds in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. under while challenging the complaint but the same has not been considered by the Court and since the discharge application has been rejected, therefore he has a new cause of action and can challenge the same. He has submitted that third prayer made in the application is maintainable.
7. Considering over all the facts, circumstances and after perusal of the record, I find that in N.I. Act, there is no provision of discharge and the proceedings is summary whatever Cr.P.C. provision is adopted under Sections 262 to 265. In that Cr.P.C. procedure, there is no provision of discharge.
8. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent- Shri Lalit Kishore Pandey finds force, I do not find any illegality in the order, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, therefore, I cannot enter into merit of the case.
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
October 13, 2025
Muk
