Kanhaiya Maurya And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Divsion) F.T.C./Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No.2008 of 2024 (Subash Chandra vs. Kanhaiya Maurya and another) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh by which discharge application was rejected.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act was filed by opposite party no.2 against the revisionists on which summoning was made by the learned trial court. The order of summoning was challenged before this Court in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. but it was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2024. At the stage of charge, discharge application was moved by the revisionist before the learned trial court but it was rejected by it without considering the facts of the case. Further submitted that the amount mentioned in the cheque was already repaid to the opposite party and cheque was demanded by the revisionist from the opposite party no.2 but it was not returned and presented before the bank filling the amount in the cheque which was subjected to dishonor as a result present complaint was filed. Further submitted that a criminal case was lodged by the revisionist Kanhaiya Maurya against the son of opposite party no.2 under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and under section 22 Uttar Pradesh Sahukari Adhiniyam which also discloses that the amount was repaid by the revisionist to the son of the opposite party no.2 even though he did not return the cheque to the revisionist but filed present case only for making pressure to extort money from him. The learned trial court has passed the order in question without considering all these facts that cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, request to set it aside and allow the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by learned trial court, it transpires that a cheque no.003060 was given by the revisionist to the opposite party no.2 which was dishonored by the bank. A notice was sent to the revisionist for making payment of the amount but no such amount was paid by him within stipulated period of time as a result complaint was filed before the learned trial court on which summoning order was passed by it which was challenged by the revisionist before this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.37880 of 2024 which was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2024. Now, at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is to make scrutiny of the material only with a view to find out the prima facie case. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed. At this stage, the scrutiny of the material cannot be made as is required during the course of trial. The F.I.R. lodged by the revisionist against the son of opposite party no.2 and the statements recorded by the I.O. in that case can also not be made basis for discharge in the present case. From the order passed by learned trial court dated 10.03.2026, there appears no any illegality and impropriety but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

May 7, 2026

Ashok Gupta