Allahabad High Court
MANISHA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court upheld the revisional court's order setting aside the trial court's summons, finding no illegality in its findings.
Summary
Manisha Devi filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside the Allahabad High Court's order dated 21 September 2024, which had annulled a trial court's summons in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The petitioner argued that the respondent had been properly served with statutory notice before the trial court summoned him, and that the revisional court erred in ignoring this fact. The respondent contended that no statutory notice had been served, prompting the revisional court to set aside the summons and remand the case for fresh consideration. The High Court examined the record, noted that both parties were heard, and found no illegality or perversity in the revisional court's reasoning. Consequently, the High Court upheld the revisional court's order and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served on the accused.
- Whether the revisional court erred in setting aside the trial court's summoning order.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the revisional court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- statutory notice
- cheque dishonour
- criminal revision
- Article 227
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7044 of 2025
Manisha Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Kant Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D.K.Rai, learned AGA for
State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the impugned order dated 21.9.2024 passed by court of Session Judge Mau
in Criminal Revision No. 235/2022 (Raju Gupta Versus Pankaj Singh and
other) Police Station Ghosi, District Mau.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 had
issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner in lieu of legal debt. However,
when the said cheque was presented before the concerned bank, it was
dishonoured with the endorsement insufficient funds. Consequently, the
petitioner instituted Complaint Case No. 11429 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar
Singh vs. Raju Gupta) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The learned trial court, upon consideration, summoned the respondent to
face trial under Section 138 N.I. Act.
4. It was further submitted that the said summoning order dated 05.03.2022
passed in Complaint Case No. 11429 of 2021 was challenged by the
respondent by filing Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2022 (Raju Gupta vs.
Pankaj Singh and another). In the revision, the respondent raised an
objection that no statutory notice had been served upon him and that the trial
court had failed to consider the issue of service of notice. The learned
revisional court, placing reliance on the said objection, allowed the revision
vide order dated 21.09.2024, set aside the summoning order dated
05.03.2022, and remanded the matter to the learned trial court for fresh
consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order
passed in Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2022 is illegal and liable to be set
aside, as the statutory notice had in fact been duly served upon the
A227 No. 7044 of 2025
2
respondent, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the revisional
court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated
21.09.2024. It is pertinent to note that both parties were heard at length by
the learned revisional court, and their submissions have been duly
considered. The revisional court has remanded the matter for fresh
consideration on the ground that the trial court failed to record a finding
regarding effective service of statutory notice upon the respondent. This
Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by
the learned revisional court.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 21.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.
235 of 2022 is hereby upheld. The present petition is dismissed.
May 5, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…