Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105640 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 86 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Applicant has filed this application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment dated 25.3.2025 passed by Special Court 138 N.I. Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint No. 522 of 2022, titled Raju Chauhan Vs. Shyam Singh, under Section 138, 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh nagar, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-opposite party no. 2 in a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the complainant-applicant has argued that the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused as the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the applicant to clear the debt of Rs.10 lacs, which was advanced by him to the accused as loan. He submits that on presentation, the cheque dishonoured and a statutory notice making demand of the said amount was neither replied nor any payment was made, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the ingredients to constitute the offence were complete and the judgment of acquittal dated 25.3.2025 calls for intereference. A perusal of the judgment dated 25.3.2025 would show that the trial court has relied upon the admission suffered by the complainant, who in his cross-examination clearly admitted that a sum of Rs.10 lacs was advanced by him to the accused in the year 2009 and the said amount was returned by him. The appellant further admitted that at that stage, a cheque was given by the accused as a security. Similar is the stand of the accused, who in his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. stated that the debt was cleared by him and the cheque has been misused by the complainant. It is apparent that the trial court has carefully examined the evidence on record and rightly noticed that the evidence on record is not sufficient for conviction of the accused. The observations made by the trial court are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings returned on acquittal of the accused. Dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad