HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10144 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 by which the applicants’ application No.21-Kha dated 10.02.2025 has been rejected by the Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 filed a complaint against the opposite party no.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The case of the applicant no.1 was registered as Complaint Case No.2104 of 2019 (Vikas Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar). It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party no.2 issued a cheque bearing No.166753 dated 12.09.2019 in favour of the applicant no.1. The said cheque was presented in the concerned bank for encashment and the same was returned back with observation "stop payment" by the drawer. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 registered the FIR through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that on 18.12.2018 opposite party no.2 was coming to Rampur Maniharan for some urgent work where his bag got missing somewhere in the market, wherein his Adhar Card, voter card, a cheque book and few signed blank cheques. In this regard, complaint was registered before the Police Station. Thereafter, applicant no.1 put the cheque before the bank for encashment. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the applicants. Applicant moved application bearing Paper No.21-Kha dated 10.02.2025 before the trial court that with the prayer that Session Trial No.881 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.514 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.2104 of 2019, both arise out of the same disputed cheque bearing No.166753 dated 12.09.2019 and between the same parties, therefore, in order to avoid conflicting judgments and to sub-serve the interest of justice, both the cases be consolidated and decided together, but the trial court has arbitrarily rejected the application. The impugned order is not aspeaking order and learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind, rejected the applicants' application. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Kanojia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, G.A. Vikas Kumar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants. 5. Upon considering the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants, it is apparent that the proceeding initiated by the applicant no.1 against the opposite party no.2 appears to be pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur. The trial court while deciding the application of the applicants has observed that the applicants may produce the material evidence recorded before this Court in proceedings of Complaint Case under Section 138 of N.I. Act and since both the proceedings are different proceedings and not related with each other, cannot be heard together. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dated 05.03.2025 is just and proper. No interference is warranted. 6. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application is dismissed. (Deepak Verma,J.) September 17, 2025 Mini NA528 No. 10144 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad