[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And ... on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:23422
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2283 of 2026
Pushpendra Kumar Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Kuldeep Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order date 09.12.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.230 of 2024 and the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.9, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.4945 of 2012, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. In view of the order propped to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
4. It is the case of the applicant that two dishonored cheques dated 12.03.2010 and 20.03.2010 for Rs.3,10,000/- and 15,000/- respectively were given by way of security to the complainant i.e. opposite party no.2. The evidence was adduced by the trial court and opposite party no.2 was cross-examined. In the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that amount has been given to the applicant. The applicant had filed evidence on 27.03.2019 for defence, in which it has been stated that money has been transferred in the account of opposite party no.2. The complainant moved applications under Sections 294 Cr.P.C. and 315 Cr.P.C., which have been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 11.02.2021. The applicant moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. read with Section 311 C.P.C. before the trial court, which has been rejected. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a criminal revision and the same has been dismissed by the revisional court vide impugned order.
5. Counsel for the applicant submits that being the assessee, the complainant must shown the details of the money advanced to the applicant in his declaration, which would be conclusive proof of the money, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. He further submits that the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that he has Pan Number and Income Tax Return. However, he has stated in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned the details of transaction with the applicant in his bank account or income tax. The complainant denied the suggestion that he advanced money to the applicant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After going through the record and pleadings, it is evident that the complainant in his cross-examination has not deposed anywhere that money was sent through bank or the money so advanced, has been shown in the Income Tax Return of the relevant year. For the sake of convenience, the cross-examination of the complainant is quoted below:-
"??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????
??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? 48 ????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ???, ??????-??????? ???????? ???, ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ? ??.??.??. ??? ??? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??, ???? ??? ?????????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ? ?????????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? 2010 ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? 16.9.2010 ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????-281712 ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ? ??? ??? ????? ????? 2010 ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ? ?? ??? ????? ????????? ?????? ?? ? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???
???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????
????? ?????? ?????"
7. It is settled law that power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised by the court to meet out the ends of justice and the same should be exercise with great caution and care. In the present case, money so advanced was neither given in cash nor through bank account i.e. online, therefore, it is not a part of the Income Tax Return.
8. In the case of Lekh Raj Sharma Vs. Yash Pal Gupta, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10074, the Delhi High Court has held that complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is not maintainable even where the transaction is not shown in income tax return. In the case of Barun Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3458, it has been held that non-furnishing of Income Tax Return on record dow not refer the presumption mandatory under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer no illegality or infirmity.
9. Application being devoid of merit, is rejected.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
April 2, 2026
Rao/-
