Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27585 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 847 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Shashibala Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aman Ahsan,Shivam Yadav,Uma Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for petitioner and Vakalatnama preferred by Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for respondent no.2, are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA. 3. The present petition has been filed for seeking quashing of judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Revision No.461 of 2023 (Smt. Shashi Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another). 4. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent no.2 preferred a compliant case whereupon petitioner was summoned under Section 138 N.I. Act vide order dated 16.09.2022 and she was also released on bail. Thereafter petitioner/accused preferred application dated 29.08.2023 seeking discharge from the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act on several grounds mentioned therein which was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2023 by learned court concerned. Being aggrieved with the said order, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.461 of 2023 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2024 by learned revisional court which impugned the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent no.2 was working as an Accountant at the petrol pump owned by petitioner and he had the access to the cheque-books pertains to petitioner and by misusing his position, respondent no.2 fraudulently obtained the signed cheque of petitioner but without considering the said facts, discharge application preferred at the behest of petitioner, has been rejected by learned court concerned vide its order dated 10.07.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that learned revisional court has also repeated the same illegality while adjudicating the criminal revision preferred at the behest of petitioner and as such, same may be set aside. It has also been apprised by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent himself lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.322 of 2022 against petitioner and her family members under Sections 420, 406, 368, 389, 323, 307, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC in pursuance of disputed amount as mentioned in the said complaint case but the allegations are completely different in both the cases and as such, the respondent no.2 implicated the petitioner on the basis of false and fabricated story. 6. Per contra, Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer as sought through the instant petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for petitioner by way of submitting that there is no provision for seeking discharge for the offence committed under Section 138 N.I. Act. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that petitioner is not contesting the matter properly and only to delay the disposal of the matter, the said discharge application was filed by her. Learned AGA also opposed the prayer made in the instant petition and seconded the argument raised by learned counsel for respondent no.2. 7. After having the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for parties, it is crystal clear that after considering each and every material available on record, learned court concerned found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner summoned the petitioner and on that basis, rejected the discharge application preferred at the behest of petitioner. In sofar as revisional order which impugned the present petition, is concerned, is just and proper since it is also not disputed by petitioner that the cheque in question was not signed by her and once a complaint is registered under Section 138 N.I. Act, the accused must face trial and the complaint under Section 138 of the Act has to be decided by the Court through a summary trial. There is no provision in law for filing of a discharge application during a summary trial and moreso trial court does not have the jurisdiction to recall or review the order passed by itself and it has no power to recall or review an order passed by it summoning the accused. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that all the grounds taken up by petitioner herein, will be considered by learned court concerned during trial of compliant case preferred by respondent no.2 under Section 138 N.I. Act. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad