HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14687 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rohit Chawdhary, learned counsel for private respondent and Shri D.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :- "i) Set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.11, District Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No.51/2019 (Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint No. 645/2016 (Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. Radhey Shyam) U/s 138 N.I Act, Police Station Gwaltoli, District Kanpur Nagar." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was made an accused in Complaint Case No.645 of 2016 (Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Radhey Shyam) under Section 138 N.I. Act. This case was fixed for defence evidence and he filed an application before the concerned court to direct the respondent/complainant to file a loan agreement deed which was in possession of respondent. Learned counsel submitted it was specifically pleaded in application that the cheque in question had been handed over to the petitioner merely as a security in respect of a loan allegedly taken by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vishal Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rahul Chaudhary, Rohit Chawdhary Radheyshyam .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Karmendra Prakash. In order to substantiate the said defence, the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court seeking a direction to the respondent/complainant to produce the loan agreement executed between the respondent and the borrower, so as to establish that the cheque had not been issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, but had only been delivered by way of security. 4. It was further submitted that aggrieved by the said order dated 28.11.2018, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.51 of 2019 (Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), which too was dismissed by the revisional court on 21.11.2023. Learned counsel submitted that depriving an accused person from adducing defence evidence is against the cannon of criminal jurisprudence, hence both impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the case is pending since the year 2018 and the petitioner frequently moves frivolous applications before the concerned court causing delay of the proceedings. He submitted that application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not in any way related to any of the grievance which affecting the respondent. The case was instituted upon a simple allegation that a cheque, which was given by the petitioner by discharge of legal liability, was dishonoured. Therefore, the false claim raised by various applications with intent to linger the proceedings of the case was rightly dismissed by both courts. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders of both courts. 7. It is very much apparent that the application filed by the petitioner before the concerned court was a frivolous application filed with an intent only to delay the disposal of the case instituted under Section 138 N.I. Act. The conduct of the petitioner is very much apparent that he does not want the case A227 No. 14687 of 2025 2 to be decided within a short period. There is no rationale for calling the loan agreement in this case if there is no denial that cheque was issued by the petitioner himself. His claim that cheque was issued by him for the loan secured by another person has no justification. 8. In the given circumstances, both impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court are upheld. 9. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the concerned trial court, before whom the proceeding of Complaint Case No.645 of 2016 (Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Radhey Shyam) under Section 138 N.I. Act, is pending, is directed to dispose of the said case expeditiously within a period of one month from today. The concerned trial court is also directed that it will not entertain any further application moved by the petitioner in the said proceeding. May 7, 2026 SK A227 No. 14687 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad