Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17581 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2649 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Abusad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,Manish Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. By means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 BNSS), the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.269 of 2024 (Mohd. Faisal Vs. Mohd. Abused), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.21, Sultanpur arising out of summoning order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.269 of 2024 filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a dealer of wholesale drug and cosmetics in the name of Master Medical Store in Normal Chauraha, District - Sultanpur, while the opposite party no.2, the complainant was working in the said shop. It has further been stated that the opposite party no.2 had stolen certain cheques and other materials for which the petitioner has lodged an e-complaint on 20.12.2023. 4. On the other hand, according to the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, opposite party no.2 had alleged that the petitioner had business dealings with the complainant and in the course of business, he had given the complaint a cheque of Rs.6,25,000/- which was presented to the Bank on 08.01.2024 and was dishonored on 09.01.2024 on account of the fact that the signatures on the cheque differed from the account-holder. It is further stated that the complainant came to know about the bouncing of the cheque on 12.01.2024. Subsequent to which he had given a notice to the petitioner for making the payment which was not made and consequently, the complaint was filed. On the said complaint, summons were issued on 20.03.2024 to the petitioner, who has already appeared before the trial court and filed his defence but for some reasons has neither disclose the said fact in the present petition nor adduced the documents filed before the trial court. 5. It has been vehemently submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are proceedings contrary to the provisions of law and once it is demonstrated that the complainant has stolen the cheque and the same cheque was presented before the bank, then the proceedings should have culminated in favour of the petitioner and the continuous of proceedings are nothing except an abuse of the process of court and consequently sought interference of this Court in the present writ petition. 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has already appeared before the trial court and he has been granted bail on 30.01.2024 and as per the oral version of the counsel for the petitioner, all the defence has been raised by him before the trial court and the matter is for final adjudication and at this stage, he has approached this Court with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings. 7. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that firstly, it is the case of the petitioner that the cheque which was presented by the complainant was allegedly stolen on 20.12.2023, the complaint of which was lodged by the petitioner on 06.01.2024. 8. We do not find any reason for the delay in lodging of the complaint on the e-portal, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.2. In the complaint, we do not find any ingredient of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, neither is any fact mentioned in the Annexure No.2, except it seems to be a receipt of some complaint. Subsequently, some complaint has also been made on IGRS Portal of the State Government but no provision could be shown as to whether there is any statutory provision for lodging complaint on the IGRS, the cognizance of which is mandatory to be taken by any police authority. 9. Accordingly, from the fact as demonstrated by the petitioner in the present petition also does not inspire any confidence to hold that any formal complaint was lodged to the police with regard to the stolen cheque. Apart from the above, we find that as per the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already appeared before the trial court and taken all the defence before the trial court which is under consideration. At this stage, clearly a trial cannot be conducted at two stages; one before the trial court and another before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., Once the petitioner has voluntarily subjected himself before the trial court and taken all the pleas, then this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will be slow to interfere unless and until there is unimpeachable evidence pointing out to the innocence of the petitioner. From the perusal of the documents mentioned hereinabove, no such finding can be returned on the basis material adduced before this Court and also considering the fact that petitioner has also already approached the trial court and obtained bail and taken the defence and clearly he has not approached this Court with clean hand inasmuch as he has failed to annexed the material adduced before the trial court, we do not find it a fit case for interference under Section 482 CrP.C. for the reasons aforesaid. 10. The petition is dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 27.3.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench