Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110486 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6643 of 2023 Revisionist :- Mohammad Tarik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Form the office report dated 3.4.2024 it reflects that notice has been served personally to opposite party no.2. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Sri Hari Nath Chauvey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State. 3. The instant revision has been filed with the prayer to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 8531 of 2023 (Mohammad Tariq Vs. Bharat Singh), under Section 138 N.I.Act. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is the complainant of the case and he filed a criminal complaint against opposite party no.2 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as cheque issued by opposite party no.2 in favour of revisionist has been dishonoured but by way of the impugned order court concerned dismissed his complaint on the ground that cheque issued by opposite party no.2 in favour of the revisionist was not against legally enforceable debt. 5. He further submits that the impugned order dated 2.12.2023 passed by the court concerned is wholly illegal as while passing the same learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that revisionist was the victim and however, opposite party no.2 issued a cheque of Rs. 5,60,000/- to him against the amount which was earlier given by revisionist to him but the same was dishonoured and, therefore, merely on the ground that the debt/liability of opposite party no.2 was not legally enforceable it was not proper to dismiss the complaint filed by revisionist. 6. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts impugned order dated 2.12.2023 is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that from the complaint filed by revisionist it reflects that he gave money to opposite party no.2 for obtaining job by illegal means and when opposite party no.2 could not fulfill the promise then against the money received by him he issued cheque to the revisionist which was dishonoured and, therefore, cheque issued by opposite party no.2 in favour of the revisionist was not against legally enforceable debt as revisionist gave money to opposite party no.2 for illegal purpose. 8. He further submtis that as per Explanation given in Explanation clause of Section 138 N.I.Act the cheque which was dishonoured must be issued against any legally enforceable debt or other liability and, therefore, court concerned rightly dismissed the criminal complaint filed by applicant moved under Section 138 N.I.Act. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. From the record it reflects that revisionist filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act against opposite party no.2 on the ground that cheque issued by opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- in favour of revisionist was dishonoured but it reflects that cheque was issued by opposite party no.2 against the money given by revisionist for the purpose of obtaining job in Jal Nigam, U.P. by illegal means and, therefore, it is apparent that his debt/liability against which cheque was issued was not legally enforceable debt/liability. 11. 11. As per Section 138 N.I.Act where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 N.I.Act. 12. As per Explanation clause of Section 138 N.I.Act, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 13. Therefore, for complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act, it is also necessary that the debt or other liability against which cheque was issued must be legally enforceable debt or liability. 14. Therefore, considering the Explanation of 138 N.I.Act, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 2.12.2023. 15. Accordingly, the instant revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025/SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad