MOHD. TAHIRversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14119 of 2025

Mohd. Tahir
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Kamlakar Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   Aushim Luthra, G.A., Irshad Husain

Court No. - 89
                      HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA
for the State are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the impugned order 14.10.2025 passed by Additional District and Session
Judge/F.T.C.-41 (Form Resolution of Crime against Women), Kanpur Nagar
in Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2025 (Nilofar Hides Vs. State of U.P. and
another) and order dated 30.11.2022 passed by Special Court, 138
Negotiable Instrument Act in Complaint Case No. 93156 of 2022 (Bilal
Hide Supplier vs. Nilofar Hide).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely
implicated by the private respondent, who instituted Complaint Case No.
242573 of 2022 (Bilal Hide Supplier vs. Nilofar Hides) under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended that the petitioner's cheques
were stolen by the respondent and subsequently misused by presenting them
before the concerned bank, resulting in dishonour. Learned counsel
submitted that the respondent intended to falsely implicate the petitioner in a
cheque bounce case, despite there being no legally enforceable liability
against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in the
aforesaid complaint case, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 119
of 2025, which too came to be dismissed on 14.10.2025. It is submitted that
the courts below failed to consider the grievances and objections raised by
the petitioner. It is also urged that the matter be referred to mediation for an
amicable settlement.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant submitted that, in
view of the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to any relief. Further,
after an inordinate delay of about three years, the petitioner filed Criminal
                                                                                            A227 No. 14119 of 2025
                                                                    2


                                    Revision No. 119 of 2025, which was dismissed on 14.10.2025.

                                    5. It is also pointed out that during the pendency of the complaint
                                    proceedings, the petitioner had challenged the non-bailable warrant issued
                                    against him by filing an application under Section 528 BNSS, being
                                    Application No. 43056 of 2025 (Neelfar Hide vs. State of U.P. and Another
                                    ), which was disposed of on 6.11.2025 with a direction to the petitioner to
                                    cooperate with the trial by appearing before the court concerned and seeking
                                    bail.

                                    6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The various
                                    attempts made by the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under Section
                                    138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly indicate that the present
                                    petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed solely
                                    to stall the proceedings in the complaint case. Such a petition is not
                                    maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of
                                    the petitioner, particularly in approaching the revisional court after an
                                    inordinate delay of three years and repeatedly invoking different
                                    jurisdictions, clearly indicates an attempt to evade the judicial process.

                                    7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

                                    April 2, 2026
                                    Ujjawal
                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad