Virendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another

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 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.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

Mukesh