A482/10967/2025 of ROSHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER on 19 December 2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The applicant has filed this application with the following main prayer: "..... for quashing of the impugned order dated 26/11/2025 passed in Crl. Revision No. 336/2025 by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Pocso Act, Gonda by means of which he has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and also quash the summoning order dated 05/05/2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Second, Gonda in Complaint case no. 2155/2021 under section 138 N.I. Act titled "Ambalal Brij Mohan Lal and company proprietor Arun Kumar Bansal Vs Roshan Singh" by means of which he has summoned the petitioner to face trial illegally, arbitrarily and without applying his judicial mind. It is further prayed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case, in the interest of justice which are contained in Annexure no.1&2 to this petition."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the summoning order dated 05.05.2022 the applicant filed revision No. 336/2025 and the same was rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, Pankaj Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Roshan Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

has submitted that the applicant had paid Rs. 1,10,000.00 and Rs. 72,599.00, while the total amount of dishonoured cheque is Rs. 1,82,599.00.

4. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the court below passed the order without application of mind. It is further submitted that the revisional court has also not considered the fact that there was no delay in filing the revision and the court could have taken lenient view while hearing the application for condonation of delay. He has submitted that the application of condonation of delay was wrongly rejected by court below, therefor, matter is liable to be remanded back for fresh hearing.

5. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order, impugned herein, has been passed after going through the record, therefore, it does not need any interference. The application is liable to be rejected.

6. After going through record, I find that the summon was issued on 05.05.2022 and the applicant was arrested and produced before the court on 24.02.20204. His application for bail was also considered on 26.02.2024. Thereafter, he was cooperating in the trial. The summoning order dated 05.05.2025 has been challenged by the applicant before the revisional court after one year four months and the reason for delay condonation is mentioned that he could not count the period properly and by adopting lenient view the application for condonation may be allowed. The court below has taken view that once he was appearing before the court below, then it was incumbent upon him to challenge the summons within reasonable time, but after one year four months he challenged the same. The reason recorded by the revisional court is correct. No need to interfere. The application is accordingly rejected. December 19, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 10967 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench