HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6250 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No. 02, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2025 (Ajay Singh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another) and order dated 26.05.2022 and summoning order dated 31.08.2022 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Judge, Mathura in Criminal Summoning Case No. 27017 of 2022 (Smt. Mamta Vs Ajay Singh Verma) under section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura as well as order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 07, District Mathura in Complaint Case No. 27914 of 2022, under Section 138, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his discharge application filed in Case No. 27914 of 2022 (Smt. Mamta Verma vs. Ajay Singh) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 14.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2024 (Ajay Singh Verma vs. State of U.P. and another), which too came to be dismissed. It was submitted that both the courts below have committed gross illegality in rejecting the discharge application hence, both the orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are triable as summons cases and have not been converted into warrant trial by the court concerned. It was contended that no discharge application is maintainable in a summons case, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar, Himanshu Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.K. Mishra, G.A., Sati Shanker Tripathi Ajay Singh Verma .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled that a discharge application is not maintainable in a summons trial. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld. The present petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 6250 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad