Allahabad High Court
A482/11038/2025 of TRIMURTI ENTERPRISES THRU. PROPRIETOR DURGESH GAUR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER on 19 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11038 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11038 of 2025
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.46592 of 2024, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Additional Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that complaint has been filed without making the Proprietor of the Firm through authorized representative as party. He further submits that summons were issued against the applicants on 28.06.2024 and the applicants appeared before the trial court and they have been granted bail. The case has been fixed for evidence. No other ground has been pressed by the counsel for the applicants.
4. From perusal of the complaint dated 24.04.2024 annexed as Annexure-2 to the application, it transpires that the firm has been made party as opposite party no.1, while Mr. Durgesh Gaud, Proprietor of the firm has also been made party as opposite party no.2. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the applicants is misconceived. The trial court after considering Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Srivastava, Amit Bhardwaj, Poornima Raj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Trimurti Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Durgesh Gaur And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
the complaint and the statement of the complainant has summoned the applicants. There is no illegality or infirmity in it.
5. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. December 19, 2025 Rao/- A482 No. 11038 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench