Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136823 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2972 of 2013 Revisionist :- Z.M. Naiyer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Atul Yadav,Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision despite the fact that there are two learned counsels on behalf of the revisionist. Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State are present. 2. Even previously on 28.7.2025, there was no representation from the side of the revisionist and the matter was directed to be listed today peremptorily along with connected matter. The said order reads as under:- "1. List revised. 2. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision despite the fact that there are two learned counsels appearing in the matter. Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State are present and have been heard. 3. Since there is no representation today on behalf of the revisionist, as a last opportunity, the matter is adjourned for today. 4. List the matter on 12.08.2025 peremptorily along with connected matter. 5. It is made clear that the matter will not be adjourned on the next date as a matter of right. " 3. This criminal revision has been filed before this Court with the following prayer:- "(i) to set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by A.C.M.M. II Kanpur Nagar in case no. 1944 of 2013, P.S. Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar, Raja Singh Vs. Z.M. Naiyer and quash the complaint. (ii) to pass such other order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 4. Perused the records with the assistance of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State. 5. Challenge in the present matter is order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the trial court concerned and also to the complaint. Perusal of the order dated 30.09.2013 goes to show that the revisionist has been summoned under Section 138 N.I. Act by the trial court concerned, the said order is a speaking order on merits. In so far as the challenge to the complaint is concerned, the perusal of the same, the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the evidence annexed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. goes to show that cheques of the revisionist have been dishonoured and despite notice, payment of the same was not made and thus the complaint was preferred and evidence was led on which the trial court concerned summoned the revisionist. No good ground is shown and is seen to interfere in the same. In so far as the grounds as pleaded are concerned, the same are in the nature of defence of the revisionist/accused which may be taken by him at the appropriate stage. 6. The revision is thus dismissed. 7. The records further do not show any existence of any interim order today. 8. The trial court to proceed diligently in the matter. 9. Let this order be communicated to the trial court concerned through the District and Sessions Judge concerned by the Registrar (Compliance) within ten days from today. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad