RADHEYSHYAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14687 of 2025



Radheyshyam
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   : Vishal Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   : G.A., Rahul Chaudhary,
                                              Rohit Chawdhary

Court No. - 89


                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rohit Chawdhary,
learned counsel for private respondent and Shri D.K. Rai,
learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed with the following main prayer :-

"i) Set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the Court of Additional
Session Judge, Court No.11, District Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No.51/2019
(Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 28.11.2018 passed by
Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar in
Complaint No. 645/2016 (Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. Radhey Shyam) U/s 138 N.I Act,
Police Station Gwaltoli, District Kanpur Nagar."


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was made an accused in Complaint Case No.645 of
2016 (Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Radhey Shyam) under
Section 138 N.I. Act. This case was fixed for defence evidence
and he filed an application before the concerned court to direct
the respondent/complainant to file a loan agreement deed
which was in possession of respondent. Learned counsel
submitted it was specifically pleaded in application that the
cheque in question had been handed over to the petitioner
merely as a security in respect of a loan allegedly taken by
                                                   A227 No. 14687 of 2025
                          2


Karmendra Prakash. In order to substantiate the said defence,
the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court
seeking a direction to the respondent/complainant to produce
the loan agreement executed between the respondent and the
borrower, so as to establish that the cheque had not been issued
towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability,
but had only been delivered by way of security.

4. It was further submitted that aggrieved by the said order
dated 28.11.2018, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision
No.51 of 2019 (Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.),
which too was dismissed by the revisional court on 21.11.2023.
Learned counsel submitted that depriving an accused person
from adducing defence evidence is against the cannon of
criminal jurisprudence, hence both impugned orders are liable
to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent
submitted that the case is pending since the year 2018 and the
petitioner frequently moves frivolous applications before the
concerned court causing delay of the proceedings. He
submitted that application filed by the petitioner under Section
311 Cr.P.C. was not in any way related to any of the grievance
which affecting the respondent. The case was instituted upon a
simple allegation that a cheque, which was given by the
petitioner by discharge of legal liability, was dishonoured.
Therefore, the false claim raised by various applications with
intent to linger the proceedings of the case was rightly
dismissed by both courts.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned orders of both courts.

7. It is very much apparent that the application filed by the
petitioner before the concerned court was a frivolous
application filed with an intent only to delay the disposal of the
case instituted under Section 138 N.I. Act. The conduct of the
petitioner is very much apparent that he does not want the case
                                                                                           A227 No. 14687 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                        to be decided within a short period. There is no rationale for
                                        calling the loan agreement in this case if there is no denial that
                                        cheque was issued by the petitioner himself. His claim that
                                        cheque was issued by him for the loan secured by another
                                        person has no justification.

                                        8. In the given circumstances, both impugned orders passed by
                                        the trial court as well as the revisional court are upheld.

                                        9. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the
                                        concerned trial court, before whom the proceeding of
                                        Complaint Case No.645 of 2016 (Mahindra and Mahindra vs.
                                        Radhey Shyam) under Section 138 N.I. Act, is pending, is
                                        directed to dispose of the said case expeditiously within a
                                        period of one month from today. The concerned trial court is
                                        also directed that it will not entertain any further application
                                        moved by the petitioner in the said proceeding.

                                        May 7, 2026
                                        SK
                                                                                      (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad