HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5680 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.03.2025 and 17.04.2025 in Complaint Case No.1600 of 2018, (Sanmukh Leasing Finance (India) Limited vs. Om Prakash Agarwal and another) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Court No.5 and further to stay the entire proceedings. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Pradeep Kumar Singh, one of the Managing Directors of the Company-opposite party No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act without any authorisation and the complaint also does not bear the seal of the Company. He has further submitted that Pradeep Kumar Singh had appeared and made statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and later on Pradeep Kumar Singh did not turn up to give evidence and one of the Directors of the Company had appeared and gave his statement before the Court. Learned counsel submitted that Pradeep Kumar Singh was not authorised by the Company to file complaint. Shri Shivam Singh came and had given statement before the Court on behalf of the Company, though he was authorised by the Company. It has been submitted that the authorisation has no meaning and the entire proceeding is vitiated in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that though Pradeep Kumar Singh has filed a complaint and did not turn up to record his statement and one of the Directors Shivam Singh had appeared before the court and his statement was recorded and he also filed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Saksena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Dharmendra Gupta Ashish Agarwal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) authorisation letter of the Company, which is admitted by both the parties. 5. Be that as it may. The appeal is pending before the appellate court, which is admitted and it has been directed that 20% of the total awarded amount will be deposited. 6. In view of the given fact that the matter is to be decided by the appellate court, therefore, this Court is exercising its discretion in reducing the amount awarded from 20% to 10% of the total amount of the award, which shall be deposited within a month. The order passed by the appellate court is modified to that extent. Rest of the order still remains intact. 7. The application stands disposed of. However, the appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, in accordance with law. October 13, 2025 Pks A482 No. 5680 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench