DEEPAK VERMA @ PAPPU VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
A227/9348/2025 · 2025-08-20
Nand Prabha Shukla
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87289 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87289 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143625 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9348 of 2025 Petitioner :- Deepak Verma @ Pappu Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.18, Agra in Criminal Revision No.1107 of 2024, Deepak Verma @ Pappu Verma vs. State of U.P. and others. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No.1, Agra in Complaint No.7011 of 2022, Deepak Verma @ Pappu Verma Vs. Hemant Bahi Badan. Prayer has also been made to direct the court concerned to decide the said Complaint No.7011 of 2022. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent no.2 alleging that the respondent no.2 had taken Rs.10,00,000/- for some purpose on 01.02.2018. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 had returned the said amount through a Cheque bearing no. 467000 of State Bank of India for Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner, which was undated. The learned court below after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the respondent no.2 had returned the borrowed amount, through Cheque No. 467000 undated of State Bank of India of Rs.10,00,000/-. But the petitioner did not encash that cheque rather has lodged a false complaint against the respondent no.2 to harass him. From the allegations, no cognizable offence is disclosed. This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned. No interference is required and the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Radhika Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad