# Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2022 (Arimardan Singh v. Chetan Kumar) under section 138-N.I. Act, Police

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 761
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 12152 of 2025
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar-X
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/complaint-case-no-1049-of-2022-arimardan-singh-v-chetan-kumar-under-section-138-54303
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3 All. Chetan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
761
 "10. The settled case law, therefore, clearly lays down the following principles: -

 (1) The imposition of a condition for furnishing an indemnity/security is at the discretion
of the Court.

 (2) Whenever the Court is of the opinion that a condition is required to be imposed due to
any debts and the fact that there is a possibility of other claimants raising claims, the condition
may be imposed.

 (3) In every case involving the grant of a succession certificate, a mechanical approach of
imposing a condition for furnishing the surety/security and insisting on the indemnity bond is not required.

 (4) When an exemption from filing any surety is sought, the Court has to consider the
entire conspectus and exercise its discretion depending on the facts of each case, in accordance
with law.

 (5) As held by the ld. Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the
imposition of a condition is not mandatory."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially that the only other heir of
deceased, namely Shilpi Agarwal, sole respondent has no objection in case the succession
certificate is granted to her sister, who is natural heir of deceased and there are no other claimants
for the estate of deceased. The imposition of condition of submitting security bond for the equal
amount involved, in my view, is not justified.

10. In view of the above legal position, the petitioner, being the sole legal heir and
beneficiary of his parent?s estate, and there being no objections from any quarter, is exempted from
furnishing a surety. The order passed by the court below dated 18.01.2025 is modified to this
extent. The court below is directed to issue succession certificate expeditiously within a period of
eight weeks from today.

11. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 761
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 12152 of 2025

Chetan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Whether both courts have committed patent illegality in dismissing the discharge application as well as
criminal revision filed by the petitioner

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227- Complaint Case under section 138-N.I. Act, was
instituted against the petitioner by respondent. Company in the said complaint case was not
impleaded as a party. The said grave illegality was raised by the petitioner by moving a
discharge application before the trial court, but the trial court, dismissed the discharge
application of the petitioner. He, thereafter, preferred Criminal Revision before the concerned
court. Said revision was also dismissed- It is trite that no discharge application can be filed by an
accused in summons case. He is entitled to file a discharge application only in those cases where
a Magistrate exercises his discretion and converts the summons case into a warrant case.

Held- Petition is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Discharge application; Cannot be filed by accused in summons case;

Case Arising From
Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2022 (Arimardan Singh Vs. Chetan Kumar) under section 138-N.I. Act, Police
StationMahoba, District-Mahoba was instituted against the petitioner by respondent no.2. Company in the said
complaint case was not impleaded as a party. The said grave illegality was raised by the petitioner by moving
a discharge application before the trial court, but the trial court, vide its order dated 5.8.2023, dismissed the
discharge application of the petitioner. He, thereafter, preferred Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2023 (Chetan
Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others) before the concerned court. Said revision was also dismissed vide
impugned order dated 24.9.2024

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar -X, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the Staterespondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2022
(Arimardan Singh Vs. Chetan Kumar) under section 138-N.I. Act, Police Station-Mahoba, DistrictMahoba was instituted against the petitioner by respondent no.2. Company in the said complaint
case was not impleaded as a party. The said grave illegality was raised by the petitioner by moving
a discharge application before the trial court, but the trial court, vide its order dated 5.8.2023,
dismissed the discharge application of the petitioner. He, thereafter, preferred Criminal Revision
No. 84 of 2023 (Chetan Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others) before the concerned court. Said
revision was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.9.2024. It was submitted that both courts
3 All. Paras @ Ram Paras Vs. Ram Charitra & Anr.
763
have committed patent illegality in dismissing the discharge application as well as criminal
revision filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the
trial court as well as by revisional court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is trite that no discharge application can be filed by an accused in summons case. He is
entitled to file a discharge application only in those cases where a Magistrate exercises his
discretion and converts the summons case into a warrant case.

6. Hence, the petition is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 763
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 13103 of 2026

Paras @ Ram Paras ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Charitra & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether in view of Rule 2 of Order XIV C.P.C. is it mandatory for the court below to try the issue relating to
jurisdiction or a bar to the suit created by any law has to be decided first as preliminary issue and thereafter,
to proceed with the matter.

Head Notes
The Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XIV Rule 2; The
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 331- An issue as to the
bar of suit created by any other law for the time being in force may be decided as a preliminary
issue if the court is of the opinion that the case or part thereof may be disposed of on such issue
only. The question, what is an issue of law, the Code does not define. Normally, if an answer to
an issue is determinable on the basis of some principle of law, the issue may be called an issue of
law. If the parties are required to lead evidence on such issue, it ceases to be an issue of law-
There can be no departure from the principle that the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the
court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision
on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue- Plea
regarding maintainability of suit is required to be raised at the first instance in the pleading
(written statement), then only such plea can be adjudicated by the trial court on its merit as
preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.
Held- It will be of no use to direct the court below to decide those issues as preliminary issues on an
application moved by defendant-petitioner after a lapse of 18 years from the date of framing of issues,