Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25217 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1166 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shailesh Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Maurya,Pawan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 preferred a complaint dated 17.04.2019 against petitioner and one other co-accused. Learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Jhansi, which was registered as Complaint Case No.985 of 2019, alleging therein that respondent no.2 lent Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner and one other co-accused but when respondent no.2 demanded the same petitioners returned only Rs.1,50,000/- and for Rs.3,50,000/- the petitioners gave a cheque to respondent no.2 which was dishonoured by the concerned Bank. Respondent no.2 again demanded the the remaining amount Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioners and infuriated with the same petitioners not only abused respondent no.2 but also threatened him. Rest of the story would be evident from the copy of the complaint appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. From the complaint preferred by the respondent no.2 learned Magistrate recorded statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of respondent no.2 dated 07.11.2020 and thereafter, learned Magistrate illegally summoned the petitioner vide order dated 06.10.2023 under Section 420 IPC. Being aggrieved with the order dated 06.10.2023 petitioner preferred criminal revision before learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi which was registered as Criminal Revision No.02 of 2024 but learned Session Judge, Jhansi without considering the material, rejected the criminal revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.03.2024. 4. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 06.10.2023 and 04.03.2024 the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing application under Section 482 NO.11389 of 2024 wherein co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 quashed the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi and remitted the matter before learned revisional court for passing fresh order. In pursuance to order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, learned Session Judge, Jhansi again heard the matter and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2024 by affirming the summoning order dated 06.10.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on several other ground inter alia that the complainant himself in statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. mentioned that Shailesh Prajapati- petitioner returned Rs.1,50,000/- as per his assurance i.e. in shape of Rs.50,000/- as cash and Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque. It is next submitted that the concerned police made an inquiry and submitted police report dated 27.03.2022 by way of recording the statement of respondent no.2, wherein he has specifically mentioned that petitioner has taken Rs.1,50,000/- from respondent no.2, while co-accused Brij Bihari Upadhyaya has taken Rs.3,50,000/- from respondent no.2, out of the same petitioner has returned the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent no.2. Hence, no dispute rests between petitioner and respondent no.2. The learned revisional court has not considered and perused the report dated 27.03.2022 and again passed judgment and order impugned which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. As per the statement of complainant which is evident from the perusal of police report dated 27.03.2022, it is apparent that the amount which was agreed by petitioner to return to the complainant has already been received by the complainant and in view of the aforesaid there is no need to issue notice to respondent no.2. 8. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records the Court is of the opinion that argument of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be forceful and as such orders dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Jhansi and 15.11.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to learned concerned Magistrate for deciding afresh at the stage of summoning against the petitioner namely Shailesh Prajapati in the light of statement recorded by complainant himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the report dated 27.03.2022 preferred by concerned police authority, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. The present writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 A Gautam Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad