Rama Shankar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 759 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rama Shankar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 3 April, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:23382

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2717 of 2026

Rama Shankar Tiwari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Rajiv Raman Srivastava, Narendra Kumar Sharma

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 15

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed with the following main relief:

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 15.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Court, Room No.4, Lucknow, in Complaint Case no.4426/2017 (Vikas Chaturvedi Versus Rama Shankar Tiwari) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) related to police station Hazratganj, District Lucknow by way of summoning the petitioner in the present case as well as impugned Revisional Order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, court no.5/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow by rejecting the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice as contained in Annexure no.1 & 2 to this petition, in the interest of justice."

3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press this application on merits. He has further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceedings and will appear before the trial court within three weeks from today. It is submitted that there is chance of mediation between the parties.

4. A perusal of the impugned complaint and the summoning order does not disclose any such manifest illegality or jurisdictional error or an abuse of process of Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act where an offence of dishonour of a cheque is involved. This Court, therefore, declines to quash the proceedings.

5. It will, however, be open to the applicant to appear before the Magistrate and pray for compounding the case in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663. In case, the applicant appears before the Magistrate within three weeks from today through counsel and moves an application seeking to compound the offences, the Magistrate shall dispose of the application in accordance with law within three months bearing in mind the relevant directions in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) after providing opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. If the orders made do not work to bring proceedings to an end in accordance with law, the trial shall proceed and brought to its logical conclusion, where the applicant will have all defence open to him under the law.

6. For a period of three months, no coercive steps shall be adopted against the applicant in respect of the aforesaid case.

7. The application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

April 3, 2026

Sachin