Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28814 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4136 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukl @ Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Dr.Surya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. 3. A request for urgency was made by learned counsel for the revisionist stating that coercive methods have been initiated by the trial Court against the revisionist due to which prayer was made to take up the matter today itself. Hence the present matter has been taken up and is being heard and decided finally. 4. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 05.05.2025, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tanda/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1074 of 2016 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is accused in Case No. 1074 of 2016, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by opposite party no. 2 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tanda/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar. It is submitted that according to the complaint the applicant is alleged to have taken Rs.4,00,000/- from opposite party no. 2 by means of cheque issued on 12.01.2018 which was drawn on DHFC Bank Branch Jaitpur, Ambedkar Nagar. The said cheque when presented in the Bank for encashment, same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Subsequently, despite legal notice having been given to the applicant, he did not pay the said amount and accordingly proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against the applicant. 6. The trial Court had issued notice to the applicant on 10.08.2018, in complicance of which he has appeared on 10.01.2025 and bail was granted to him. Subsequently, applicant moved an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge which was also duly considered and rejected by means of order dated 13.02.2025. While rejecting the application for discharge the trial Court has fixed the case for 17.02.2025, on which date the applicant did not appear and consequently impugned order was passed issuing non bailable warrant against the applicant. It has been informed that proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated to secure attendance of the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that against the rejection of discharge application, the applicant has preferred a revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. It is admitted that no interim protection has been granted to the applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that coercive methods have been adopted by the trial Court and prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order and the applicant undertakes to appear in the proceedings before the trial Court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the application and submits that summons were issued in 2018 and since then matter has been pending due to non cooperation of the applicant, who appeared before the trial Court only in 2025 and has filed bond for appearance, he again did not appear on 17.02.2025, due to which non bailable warrant has been issued. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Facts of the case are not in dispute. It is noticed that against the order rejecting the discharge application, the applicant has preferred revision, but no interim protection has been granted to him, accordingly on the date fixed i.e. 17.02.2025, the applicant was bound to appear before the trial Court but he moved an application for exemption and same was rejected and non bailable warrant has been issued against him. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant did not participated in the proceedings previously as notices were not served to him and only when he came to know of the proceedings, he had approached and appeared before the trial Court and obtained bail on 10.01.2025. He undertakes that he shall appear and cooperate in the proceedings before the trial Court. 12. In the light of above, impugned order dated 05.05.2025, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tanda/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1074 of 2016, is set aside, subject to the condition, that the applicant deposits an amount of Rs.25,000/- before the trial Court, within next two weeks. The amount so deposited by the applicant shall be released in favour of opposite party no. 2, on an application being moved by him in this regard. 13. It is further directed that the applicant shall file an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that he will appear on all the dates fixed in the matter, unless he seeks exemption from appearance. 14. Subject to aforesaid conditions, present application stands allowed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench