Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:396 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12006 of 2024 Applicant :- Bhavna Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. This petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Court No. 11 passed in complaint No. 82513/2022 "Royal Kind Liquor Vs. Bhavna Srivastava" as well as revisional court's order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow passed in criminal revision No. 526/2024 "Bhawna Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that summoning of the branch manager/bank official was essential and, for this purpose, an application dated 24.04.2024 was filed. In the application, a request was also made for summoning Dharampal Singh, manager of an english liquor shop. It is not disputed between the parties that after rejection of the said application filed by the petitioner, Dharampal Singh has been examined as a defence witness. Learned counsel for the applicant confines his prayer to the extent that bank manager/bank official may be summoned. He has submitted that learned court below in a cursory manner, without application of mind, has rejected petitioner's application. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner/accused has not provided any valid reason in the application for summoning the bank manager/bank official. The application is vague and hence, it has rightly been rejected by the learned court below as well as by the revisional Court. It has been further submitted that trial is at the advanced stage and the application appears to be a delaying tactic. The petitioner is alleged to have a criminal history involving four cases of similar nature, one filed by the present complainant and three by others. Perused the record. The lower court below vide order dated 30.05.2024 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The operative part of the order is extracted below:- " ममनन पततवलल कत अवललकन ककयत तथत कवपकल कन पतथरनत पत कत भल अवललकन ककयत। पतथरनत पत मम कवपकल दतरत चनक कदनतनककत 04.07.2022 सन सनबनधधत बमक IDFC FIRST BANK कन शतखत पबनधक / बमक कमरचतरल कल सतकय मम तलब करनन कन धलयन यतचनत कक गई हह। जबकक पररवतदल दतरत आपधत मम यह कहत गयत हह कक कवपकल दतरत बयतन धतरत-251 दन०प०सन० मम चनक पर अपनन हसततकर करनत सवलकतर ककयत हह, परनतत बयतन धतरत-313 द०प०सन० मम अपनत हसततकर असवलकतर ककयत गयत हह। कवपकल दतरत अपनन पतथरनत पत मम कलई आधतर नहह बढतयत गयत हह कक बमक कन शतखत पबनधक व कमरचतररयय कल ककस पपत कल सतकबत करनन हनतत बतलतयत जतयन। जबकक कवपकल दतरत पतनन अपनल पकतउतर मम यह कथन ककयत गयत हह कक कवपककनल अपनन कवधधक नलकटस मम कहह भल यह नहह कहत हह कक चनक पर कवपककनल कन हसततकर हह और उसकन दतरत पशनगत चनक भतगततन हनतत पररवतदल कल दल गई हह। पशनगत चनक पर कवपककनल कन हसततकर नहह हह यहल बतत उसकन दतरत बयतन अनतगरत धतरत-251 दन०प०सन० मम नयतयतलय कल बततई थल परनतत ततकटवश नयतयतलय दतरत कवपककनल कन हसततकर हलनत अनककत कर कदयत थत। अतन पररवतदल कक आपधत आधतरहलन तथयहलन व बलहलन हलनन कन कतरण कनरसत ककयत जतयन तथत पतथरनत सवलकतर करतन हहयन नतकमत सतककयय कल सतकय हनतत तलब ककयत जतयन। यह भल सपष हह कक अकभयतकत कत बयतन नयतयतलय कन समक अनककत ककयत धजसमम अकभयतकत नन सपष कहत हह कक ममनन पररवतदल कल उपरलक चनक नहह कदयत थत मनरन सव० पकत नन कदयत थत। उपरलक चनक सनकयलररटल कन रप मम मनरन पकत नन कदयत थत. चनक पर मनरन हसततकर हम, धनरतकश नहह भरल गई हह। मतझन कवधधक नलकटस नहह कमलल थल। मनरत कलई भतगततन शनष नहह हह सतरत पहसत आर०टल०जल०एस० दतरत अदत कर कदयत हह। यकद कवपककनल कल कवधधक नलकटस नहह पतप नहह हहई थल, तल कवपककनल दतरत अपनन अधधवकत कन मतधयम सन पररवतदल कल कवधधक नलकटस कत जवतब कयय कदयत गयत। इस पकतर कवपकल कन पतथरनत पत मम बमक कन अधधकतरल/ कमरचतरल कल सफतई सतकय कन रप मम आहहत करनन कक ककसल पकतर कक आवशयकतत नहह पतलत हलतल हह। अतन कवपककनल कत पतथरनत पत कनरसत हलनन यलगय हह। कवपककनल कत पतथरनत पत कनरसत ककयत जततत हह। तदनतसतर आपधत कनसततररत कक जततल हह। पततवलल वतसतन सफतई सतकय कदनतनक 05.07.2024 कल पनश हल।" Against that rejection order, a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner, which was also rejected by the revisional court vide order dated 23.09.2024 relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court. Perusal of the application filed by the petitioner/applicant shows that no reason has been assigned by her for summoning bank manager/bank official and neither the purpose of such summoning has been mentioned in the said application. Learned court below while rejecting her application has observed that the accused has not mentioned anything as to why the concerned bank official/bank employee is required to prove what or which document. It has been further observed that there seems no requirement to summon bank official/bank employee as defence witness. The accused, in her statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C., admitted signing the cheque but later denied the signature during her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The application fails to justify the necessity of summoning the bank official. I find no illegality in the orders impugned. There appears to be no pleadings made in the application to summon the bank official. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench