Allahabad High Court
VIRENDRA KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
Where a specific remedy is provided under a special statute, the aggrieved party cannot bypass that remedy and resort to proceedings under general law.
Summary
Virendra Kumar Yadav filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside a magistrate's order rejecting his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and a subsequent revision order, both of which dismissed his claim that the respondent habitually issued dishonoured cheques. The petitioner alleged fraud and argued that the dismissal was perverse, while the respondent contended that the petitioner could have pursued remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but failed to do so within the prescribed time. The High Court examined whether a specific statutory remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act precludes the use of general criminal procedure provisions. It held that where a special statute provides a specific remedy, the aggrieved party cannot bypass it by invoking general law provisions. Finding no perversity in the lower courts' decisions, the Court dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 156(3) CrPC can be entertained when a specific remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act is available.
- Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) CrPC is perverse.
- Whether the petitioner is barred from invoking general criminal law when a special statutory remedy exists.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Cheque bounce
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Article 227
- Specific statutory remedy
- Fraud
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12126 of 2025
Virendra Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Pandey, Ram Kumar Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Barkha Jaiswal,
G.A., Rama Shankar Mishra
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private
respondent and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State- Respondent.
2. This petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated
30.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saidpur,
Ghazipur, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
rejected (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), as well as the order dated
21.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, in Criminal
Revision No. 336 of 2024 (Virendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another),
whereby the revision was also rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a cheque was issued to
him by the respondent in the year 2022, and when the same was presented
before the bank, it was dishonoured. Thereafter, he filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that the respondent is in the habit of
borrowing money from innocent persons and, when repayment is demanded,
issues cheques in lieu thereof, ensuring that the cheques lapse due to
limitation. It is further submitted that the respondent habitually cheats
persons in a similar manner. He submitted that the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosed all relevant details and contained specific
allegations against the respondent; however, the same was dismissed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, District Ghazipur, vide order dated
30.09.2024, observing that the petitioner has an efficacious and sufficient
remedy under the N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision No.336 of 2024 (Virendra Yadav vs. State of
A227 No. 12126 of 2025
2
U.P. and Another), which was also dismissed on 21.05.2025. Learned
counsel submitted that the conduct of the respondent amounts to fraud and
also constitutes an offence; hence, the rejection of the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is perverse.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the
petitioner could have instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act but deliberately chose not to prosecute the respondent, as he failed to
avail the remedy within the prescribed time. It is submitted that the findings
recorded by both the courts below do not suffer from any perversity.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by
the courts below.
6. This Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the
courts below. Where a specific remedy has been provided under a special
statute, the aggrieved party cannot bypass such statutory remedy and resort
to proceedings under general law for prosecuting the proposed accused.
Hence, the findings recorded by both the courts below do not suffer from
any infirmity.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
May 7, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…