Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:960 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15080 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tarique Ali Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State respondents. 2. By means of this present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 03.06.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar, rejecting the delay condonation application preferred in Criminal Misc. No. 352 of 2023 (Tarique Ali Khan v. Arrow Developers Pvt. Ltd.) as well as orders dated 16.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-III, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3022 of 2016, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner and respondent no.2 entered into a lease agreement of a property pertains to respondent no.2 for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2016 in lieu of rent of Rs.38500/- per month. In pursuance of the said lease, on 02.06.2015, petitioner issued a cheque in favour of respondent no.2 amounting to Rs.3,85,000/- which was the advance rent for 10 months. Another cheque of Rs.77000/-for rent of June and July has also been issued on 07.07.2015 by petitioner in favour of respondent no.2. Upon receiving the said cheques, the respondent deposited them in its account on 04.08.2015 and the same were dishonored with a return memo of 'fund insufficient'. 4. Immediately thereafter, on 11.08.2015 the respondent served legal notice upon petitioner demanding the outstanding dues, despite the receipt of said notice, the petitioner did not pay the alleged amount. Thereafter, respondent no.2 preferred complaint alongwith delay condonation application before the concerned court. Vide order dated 16.03.2022, learned court concerned condoned the delay with cost of Rs.2,500/- and registered the complaint case and after having statement of complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioner under Section 138 N.I. Act vide order dated 29.03.2022. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and got released on bail. Subsequently, respondent no.2 preferred application under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act over which, learned trial court concerned directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of cheque amount to be paid to respondent no.2 within 60 days vide order dated 05.05.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 16.03.2022, 29.03.2022 and 05.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -III, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No.378 of 2016, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, preferred criminal revision alongwith application for condonation of delay. The said criminal revision preferred at the behest of petitioner, was dismissed in pursuance of orders dated 16.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 by learned revisional court vide order dated 03.06.2024 since they were time barred and admit the revision in pursuance of order dated 05.05.2023 on the ground that the same was challenged within time. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner issued the cheques in question for lease agreement but he never used the leased property and as such, he cannot be held responsible for any liability in shape of any amount to be paid by him to respondent no.2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was not having knowledge of impugned orders but without considering the said fact, learned revisional court dismissed the revision preferred at the behest of petitioner on the ground of delay in filing the said revision. It has also been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent no.2 by way of manipulating the cheques issued by petitioner, approached the bank for encashment, meaning thereby, respondent no.2 itself had committed fraud. 6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as sought through the instant petition and submitted that revisional court has rightly passed the order impugned since it is apparent from the record that petitioner was having knowledge of the orders passed by learned trial court concerned. 7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that petitioner was having knowledge of the impugned orders passed by learned trial court concerned since he was appeared on 29.09.2022 and as such, learned revisional court has rightly rejected the application for condonation of in preferring the revision in pursuance of orders dated 16.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. Moreso, it is also not denied by petitioner that he had not issued the cheques in question in favour of respondent no.2 in terms of the lease agreement and as such, the orders passed by learned revisional court are just and proper. In sofar as manipulation in the cheques is concerned, the same relates to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the present petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad