DINESH KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
/5/2025 · 2025-01-07
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 114456 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 114456 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1037 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Yadav,Ajeet Kumar Yadav,Ashish Kumar Gupta,Jeevan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State. Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.9.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Ayodhya (Gaizabad) in Criminal Revision No. Nil/2024 (Annexure-9) and impugned order dated 7.9.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) IV/A.C.J.M. Ayodhya (Annexure-7) by which the application dated 7.6.2024 has been rejected wherein it was prayed by him that the alleged cheque, which is not signed by him, should be sent to the handwriting expert for examination. Against the rejection order dated 7.9.2024 a revison was filed by the applicant on 23.9.2024, which has also been rejected vide order dated 25.9.2024. Perused the record. Perusal of the impugned order dated 7.9.2024 shows that the learned court below has given a categorical finding while rejecting the application that bank has dishonored the cheque because of insufficiency of fund. It has not been mentioned in the return memo in respect of the deficiency in signature on the disputed cheque. Neither any specimen signature has been produced by the applicant to show any difference or variance in the alleged signature on the cheques. File is at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the statement of the accused. The stage of defence to adduce evidence is yet to come. The applicant will have reasonable opportunity to adduce the evidence in his defence at the
appropriate stage. Earlier also the same application given by him dated 21.11.2017 at the time of framing of charges for the same request has already been rejected by the learned court below. There appears to be no illegality in the orders impugned. The application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench