Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21765 Court No. - 19 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1042 of 2017 Applicant :- Sazar Abbas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Singh,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Atul Verma,Rajesh Mishra,Syed Asaghar Mehdi Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Nobody is present for the respondent No.2 even in revised call. 2. The applicant by means of the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing the Complaint Case No.2995 of 2015, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow (Mohd. Hashim v. Sazar Abbas), pending in the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI/AP, Lucknow and the summoning order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI/AP, Lucknow. 3. It appears that the opposite party No.2 had demanded Rs.10 lacs from the applicant and on the said demand, the applicant gave a cheque bearing No.016354, dated 22.09.2015 of Rs.8.50 lacs drawn at Allahabad Bank, Branch Mawaiya, District Lucknow. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured on ground of 'insufficient fund'. Thereafter, a complaint was submitted before the concerned Court, and the statement of the opposite party No.2 was recorded. 4. The Subordinate Court found from reading of the complaint alongwith the statement of the opposite party no.2, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and documentary evidence on record that a prima facie, a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been made out. Accordingly, summoning order was issued to the applicant. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has already lodged F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No.546 of 2015, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. on 08.09.2015 against the opposite party No.2 alleging that the opposite party No.2 by presenting imposter got a sale deed executed in favour of the applicant. It is submitted that the Police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. It is submitted that it has come on record that the cheque was given in the form of sale consideration, and when it was disclosed that a fraud has been committed by the opposite party No.2 for selling the house to the applicant, there was no occasion for the applicant to maintain the sufficient fund for clearance of the said cheque. 6. Be that as it may, the summoning order reads as under:- "24.9.16- पततवलल पपश हहई। पपकतर करतयल गयय। पततवतदल मम. हततशम कप तवदतन अधधवकत कम सपनत एवव पततवलल कत समयक पररशललन तकयत। पररवतदल कत सवकपप मम कथन हह तक तवपकल नप पररवतदल सप उधतर कप रप मम दस लतख रपयप कक मतवग कक। पररवतदल नप तवपकल कम उक रपयप तदयप। पररवतदल दतरत दस लतख रपयप कक मतवग करनप पर तवपकल नप चपक सव. 016354 तदनतवतकत 22.9.15 मपबधलग 8,50,000 रपयप इलतहतबतद बबक शतखत मवहयत, लखनऊ कत तदयत। पररवतदल नप उक चपक कम भपगततन हपतप अपनप बबक मम जमत तकयत। बबक दतरत उक चपक " अपयतरप तनधध" कप कतरण तदनतवक 17.9.15 कम अनतदररत हम गयत। पररवतदल नप अपनप अधधवकत कप मतधयम सप तवपकल कम तदनतवक 22.9.15 कम एक रधजसटरर नमतटस भपजल। पररवतदल दतरत पररवतद पत कप समथरन मम धतरत-200 द.प.स. कप अवतगरत शपथ पत पसतपत तकयत हह एवव दसयततपजल सतकय कप रप मम ममल चपक पररवतदल कप अधधवकत कक नमतटस, बबक मपमम, पमसटल रसलद आतद पपत कम शततमल तमधसल तकयत हह। पररवतदल दतरत पसतपत पररवतद तदनतवक 26.10.15 कम तवतहत समयतवधध मम पपश तकयत गयत हह तथत पररवतदल दतरत दतधखल दसततवपजम कप अवलमकन सप मपरप तवचतर सप तवपकल दतरत धतरत-138 परकतमय धलधखत अधधतनयम कत अपरतध कतररत तकयत जतनत पथम दषयत पकट हमतत हब। अतत तवपकल कम धतरत 138 परकतमय धलखत अवधधतनयम कप अवतगरत आहहत तकयप जतनप कत पयतरप आधतर हह। आदपश तवपकल शजर अबबतस धतरत-138 परकतमय धलखत अधधतनयम कप अपरतध मप तवचतरण हपतप बजररयप सममन तलब तकयत जतय। पररवतदल आवशयक पहरवल अवदर सपतह करप। पततवलल तदनतवक 18.11.16 कम पपश हम।" 7. From reading of the summoning order, it is evident that the Subordinate Court has recorded a categorical finding that from reading of the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith documentary evidence on record, the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the applicant, and after recording the satisfaction, the Subordinate Court has issued summoning order against the applicant. 8. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that he has submitted F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No.546 of 2015 in which the charge-sheet has been filed and it was found that fraud has been committed by the respondent No.2 and since the amount was paid as guarantee for sale consideration, therefore, there was no occasion to the applicant to maintain the sufficient fund is concerned, that is the matter of trial and this Court cannot enter into such issue which requires consideration of evidence and material on record. 9. For the reasons given above, this Court does not find any illegality in the summoning order. 10. Consequently, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025/S.Sharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench