Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33260 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2285 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Naturon Health Care Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has raised his argument only on the legal issue and as such process of issuing notice to private respondents is hereby dispensed with. 3. The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. No.1, Bareilly in Complaint Case No.1218 of 2022 (Madan Pal Singh Vs. Sadanand Chandrabhan Pandey and Others) along with order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Session Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.438 of 2024 (M/s Naturon Health Care Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought the attention of Court over the narration of complaint preferred at the behest of respondent no.2, wherein the allegation which has been put forward against the petitioner is broadly based upon dishonor of cheque, which has been issued by the petitioner and thereafter some incident took place which attracted sections 504, 506 I.P.C., but after recording statement under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., learned trial court summoned the petitioner in pursuance to sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., the reasoning and finding recorded by learned trial court while summoning the petitioner determined two incidents before arriving over conclusion for summoning the petitioner and the same has been reproduced herein below:- " पररववदद सस छलपपवरक, कक ल धनरवशश 9,55,800/- रपयस कक Sildenafil Citrate I.P. कक पवप कर उपरकक चसकस शदयस गयस जक शक अनवदत हक गयस तथव रपयस कक मवमग करनस पर रपयस कक ववपस नहह शकयव एवम गवलद गललज कर जवन सस मवरनस कक धमकक दद गयद, जजसकव समथरन थवनव ककतववलद बरसलद सस पवप अनवसषण आखयव अनतगरत धवरव 202(1) दम०प०सम० मम भद शकयव गयव हह। " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as regarding the first incident which has been determined by learned trial court for summoning the petitioner in pursuance to sections 420, 406 I.P.C. is concerned i.e., beyond jurisdiction by learned trial court, since in any case if the cheques executed by the petitioner has already been dishonored, the same is amenable under the proceedings of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; so far as the attraction of sections 504, 506 I.P.C. are concerned, no justification has been received by learned trial court that under which circumstances the availability of petitioner was at Bareilly since neither the petitioner nor the respondent no.2 is having any concerned with District Bareilly. It is further submitted that the grounds mentioned in Criminal Revision No.438 of 2024 preferred at the behest of petitioner was also not given any credence by learned revisional court and culminated into order dated 30.01.2025, through which summoning order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned trial court has been upheld, which impugned the present petition. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that once the complaint has been received by learned court concerned and after recording statement under section 200 and the relevant documents which has been produced and taken on recording under section 202 Cr.P.C. by learned court concerned and moreover the inquiry which has been conducted under section 202(1) Cr.P.C., if the offence has been made out then the learned Magistrate was not having any other option but to pass summoning orders against the petitioner. 7. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the procedure mandate as per law before summoning the proposed accused in Complaint Case No.1218 of 2022 is to record statement under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., but in the instant matter only the relevant records has been taken into consideration is of under section 202 Cr.P.C., which is gross violation of the procedure since the stage for leading evidences is after passing orders over the statement recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., i.e., in shape of statement of complainant along with witnesses, not the evidences which was taken on record in pursuance to section 202 Cr.P.C., the stage of leading evidences will be at the later stage after completing proper procedure mandated in sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. 8. The extract of the order which has been reproduced above clearly demonstrates that learned trial court entered into controversy in respect of dishonor of cheque, which is absolutely not in the domain of learned trial court unless the proceeding has not been instituted in pursuance to section 138 N.I. Act and by bare perusal of complaint, it is crystal clear that it is simple criminal complaint preferred by respondent no.2 not in pursuance to section 138 N.I. Act. 9. In the light of above discussion, order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. No.1, Bareilly in Complaint Case No.1218 of 2022 (Madan Pal Singh Vs. Sadanand Chandrabhan Pandey and Others) and order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Session Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.438 of 2024 are hereby set-aside, the matter is remitted back to learned court concerned for taking fresh decision only after recording statement under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for summoning, if required. 10. The above mentioned exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad