HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6602 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, even in the revised call, however, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. By means of present revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 633 of 2022 (Bachhi Devi vs. Shivani Patel), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, by which the application of the revisionist herein has been dismissed by the Additional Court, Varanasi on the ground that since the procedure involved in the cases tried under N.I. Act is a summary procedure and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. In support of his contention, learned counsel for revisionist has relied upon Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- "When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge." 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the cheques in question issued were meant for the purpose of paying the electricity bills whatsoever, however the said cheques have been misused by the complainant and a false complaint has been filed against the revisionist. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the procedure involved under Section 138 N.I. Act is a summary procedure and in summary procedure no such application can be entertained at the preliminary stage, since it involves in adducing all evidence on behalf of the parties, i.e. for the complainant and the accused. He further submitted that as per Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., when accused appears, it shall remain open to him either to plead guilty or face trial in the present case, the trial has not yet commenced and so far as the merits of the case is concerned, the accused will have ample opportunity to adduce such evidence as available in his Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dr. Vishnu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Shivani Patel .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) favour to be placed on record. 6. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the order passed by the Additional Court, Varanasi dated 12.09.2024 appears to be in order, as much as the trial is still open, as the accused have merely appeared and submitted that the said application is not maintainable. However, the maintainability or otherwise of the complaint can only be looked by adducing appropriate evidence in the case, hence it shall remain open to the accused / revisionist herein to adduce whatsoever evidence is available in his favour during the course of trial. 7. The instant revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 17, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 6602 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad