Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113842 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19356 of 2025 (Leading case) Applicant :- Vandana Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19438 of 2025 (Connected case) Applicant :- Vandana Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by Sri Abhinav Jaiswal (AOR No. A/A 0685 of 2022) learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in both the applications are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Abhinav Jaiswal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in both the applications. 3. The statement has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant that he does not propose to file any response to the counter affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. 4. With the consent of the parties, the application has been decided at the fresh stage. 5. The case of the applicant in the leading application is that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 03.03.2012 against one Sri Dharmendra Singh S/o Vijay Bahadur Singh with an allegations that with respect to discharge of liability a cheque bearing no. 666069 of an amount of Rs. two lac dated 14.09.2011 was drawn which on presentation in the bank came to be dismissed on 04.02.2012 and a statutory demand notice was issued on 10.02.2012 followed by a complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 03.03.2012. The applicant came to be summoned on 01.04.2013 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, an application came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 09.07.2019 for impleading the applicant in place of Dharmendra Singh on the premise that the original accused had died. the said application came to be allowed on 09.07.2019 while passing the following order: " आज ववद पपश हहआ। पररववदद उपसससतत अभभययक कप समबनध मम सवनव सदसवमऊ सप ममतयय आखयव पवप हहई। पररववदद कक ओर सप अभभययक धमरनद ससतह कप ससवन पर शदमतद वनदनव ससतह कक बततर अभभययक तलब भकयप जवनप कव पव० पत पसतयत भकयव गयव। वनदनव कक नकभटस भदनवतक 16.07.19 कक जवरद हक।" 6. As regards the connected application is concerned, there the complaint was preferred by the opposite party no.2 U/s 138 of N.I. Act against one Dharmendra Singh with respect to dishonouring of a cheque bearing no. 666070 dated 11.02.2023 of an amount of Rs. 4 lac followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20.03.2013 and the complaint dated 17.04.2013 and summoning the applicant on 20.11.2013. Thereafter an application came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 for impleading the applicant as an accused. Since the original accused had expired. The said application came to be allowed on 09.07.2019 while passing the following order: " आज ववद पपश हहआ। पररववदद उपसससत अभभययक कक ममतयय आखयव सवनव सससमऊ सप पवप हहई। शदमतद वनदनव ससतह कक आमपवन कक तलब भकयप जवनप हपतय पत पसतयतव वनदनव ससतह कक नकभटस भदनवतक 16-8-19 कक तलब हक।" 7. Questioning the orders allowing the impleadment application while impleading the applicant as one of the accused, the present application have been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant has no role to play as he was not a signatory to the cheque and neither he was a director of the company in question however the court of Additional Civil Judge/ J.D. court no.2 Kanpur Nagar without passing any reasons as impleading the applicant as an accused without there being basis. He submits that at least some consideration ought to have been accorded in that regard. 9. Learned AGA as well as the counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the applicant was the director and thus he was responsible in view of the provisions contained in Section 138 read with section 141 of N.I. Act. However, they submits that the order impleading the applicant as a party has not been passed while recording any reasons. He submits that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 10. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 11. Apparently a complaint stood lodged against the original complainant, however, an application was preferred in the year 2019 for impleading the applicant as an accused. The court finds that the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the court below is unreasoned and non speaking order. Accordingly, the Court has no option but to set the impugned order and remit the matter back to the court below to pass a fresh order in the following terms: a. The summoning order dated 09.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) court no.2, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no. 987 of 2012 in leading and complaint case no. 1303 of 2013 in connected application (Ram Krishna Shukla vs. Dharmendra Singh) U/s 138 of N.P. Act, P.S. Sisamau, District Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed. b. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. c. For early disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 25.07.2025. d. The passing of the order may not construed to the expression that this court has adjudicated the matter on the merits. However the court below is to pass an order strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observation, both the applications are disposed of. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad