HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7044 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D.K.Rai, learned AGA for State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 21.9.2024 passed by court of Session Judge Mau in Criminal Revision No. 235/2022 (Raju Gupta Versus Pankaj Singh and other) Police Station Ghosi, District Mau. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner in lieu of legal debt. However, when the said cheque was presented before the concerned bank, it was dishonoured with the endorsement insufficient funds. Consequently, the petitioner instituted Complaint Case No. 11429 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar Singh vs. Raju Gupta) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned trial court, upon consideration, summoned the respondent to face trial under Section 138 N.I. Act. 4. It was further submitted that the said summoning order dated 05.03.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 11429 of 2021 was challenged by the respondent by filing Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2022 (Raju Gupta vs. Pankaj Singh and another). In the revision, the respondent raised an objection that no statutory notice had been served upon him and that the trial court had failed to consider the issue of service of notice. The learned revisional court, placing reliance on the said objection, allowed the revision vide order dated 21.09.2024, set aside the summoning order dated 05.03.2022, and remanded the matter to the learned trial court for fresh consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2022 is illegal and liable to be set aside, as the statutory notice had in fact been duly served upon the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Kant Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh, G.A. Manisha Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the revisional court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 21.09.2024. It is pertinent to note that both parties were heard at length by the learned revisional court, and their submissions have been duly considered. The revisional court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the ground that the trial court failed to record a finding regarding effective service of statutory notice upon the respondent. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned revisional court. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 21.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2022 is hereby upheld. The present petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 7044 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad