# Imran Khan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 314
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 26740 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/imran-khan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53369
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 155(2) & 482 - Public
Gambling Act, 1867 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Constitution
of
India,1950
-
Article
19(1)(g)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - for
quashing charge-sheet and summoning order -
FIR - charge sheet - under Sections 3/4 of
5 All. Imran Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
315
Public Gambling Act - summoning order -
applicants argued offences are non-cognizable -
and
investigation
without
Magistrate's
permission violates Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. - cited
Keshav Lal Thakur Vs St. of Bihar - Court found
that, entire proceedings void ab initio - Public
Gambling Act outdated - lacks provisions for
digital platforms, cross-border transactions -
negligible penalties fail to deter large-scale
operations - global models (UK, US, Australia)
offer modern regulatory frameworks - fantasy
sports in India in legal grey zone - GST Council
imposes 28% tax on online bets - urgent need
for central legislation - Court takes suo-motu
cognizance - directs UP Government to form
High-Powered Committee chaired by Prof. K.VS
Raju - mandate: draft comprehensive law for
regulating online betting and gaming - justice
must evolve with technology - procedural lapses
cannot override constitutional safeguards -
Accordingly, application is disposed of - and the
impugned chargesheet as well as summoning
order are hereby quashed with liberty to the
police to initiate fresh investigation after
complying with existing provisions of law. (Para
-15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25)

Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Keshav Lal Thakur Vs St. of Bihar - (1196) 11
SCC 557,

## Text

314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
All 2328 = 2023 (4) ACR 3525, wherein it
was held that: -

 "32. ...it is settled principles of
law that the police has a right to further
investigate the matter even after the
submissions of the charge-sheet/report
before the learned Magistrate and even
after the Magistrate had taken cognizance
of the report/charge-sheet. In exercise of
power under Section 173(8) CrPC of the
Code, it has been statutorily recognised
that there is no statutory requirement that
before
initiating
further
investigation,
investigation agency must take permission
of the Magistrate concerned. Further,
investigation is very distinct from the
reinvestigation/de novo investigation or
fresh investigation. Further investigation is
the continuance of the investigation, which
has already been done and on discovery of
new facts or the facts which were left out
during the investigation. Whereas in the
case of the fresh, denovo or reinvestigation,
the investigation already done is required
to be wiped out and investigation is
required to begun from its inception.
Further investigation can be carried out
even without any permission from the
Magistrate concerned. However, fresh, denovo or reinvestigation cannot be done
without
the
specific
orders
by
the
competent court."

18. Keeping in view the law as
clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (Supra)
and by a Division Bench of this Court in
Jitendra Singh (Supra), I am of the
considered view that the trial court has
acted well within its jurisdiction to order
examination of the pen-drive and cheques
in question by the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Lucknow so as to enable it to
arrive at a just decision in the matter.
19. The inherent powers of this
Court under Section 582 BNSS are meant
to be exercised to make such orders as may
be necessary to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Any interference in the
impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed
by the trial court would not secure the ends
of justice, rather it will create unwarranted
hurdle in securing the ends of justice.

20. The impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality warranting
interference by this Court.

21. The application under Section
582 BNSS lacks merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 26740 of 2024

Imran Khan & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Diwan Saifulla Khan, Sri Rajiv Lochan
Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 155(2) & 482 - Public
Gambling Act, 1867 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Constitution
of
India,1950
-
Article
19(1)(g)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - for
quashing charge-sheet and summoning order -
FIR - charge sheet - under Sections 3/4 of
5 All. Imran Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
315
Public Gambling Act - summoning order -
applicants argued offences are non-cognizable -
and
investigation
without
Magistrate's
permission violates Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. - cited
Keshav Lal Thakur Vs St. of Bihar - Court found
that, entire proceedings void ab initio - Public
Gambling Act outdated - lacks provisions for
digital platforms, cross-border transactions -
negligible penalties fail to deter large-scale
operations - global models (UK, US, Australia)
offer modern regulatory frameworks - fantasy
sports in India in legal grey zone - GST Council
imposes 28% tax on online bets - urgent need
for central legislation - Court takes suo-motu
cognizance - directs UP Government to form
High-Powered Committee chaired by Prof. K.VS
Raju - mandate: draft comprehensive law for
regulating online betting and gaming - justice
must evolve with technology - procedural lapses
cannot override constitutional safeguards -
Accordingly, application is disposed of - and the
impugned chargesheet as well as summoning
order are hereby quashed with liberty to the
police to initiate fresh investigation after
complying with existing provisions of law. (Para
-15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25)

Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Keshav Lal Thakur Vs St. of Bihar - (1196) 11
SCC 557,
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicants and Shri
H.P. Singh, learned A.G.A-I, for the State
and perused the entire material available on
record.

2. The present application has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the
charge sheet dated 27.12.2022 arising out
of FIR No. 69 of 2022, under section 3/4
Public Gambling Act, 1867, registered at
P.S. Mantola, District Agra, as well as
impugned
summoning
order
dated
23.05.2023,
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate-I, Agra, whereby the applicants
have been summoned.

3. The prosecution's case stems
from the facts outlined herein that on June
13, 2022, Sub-Inspector Vikas Kumar,
along with Constable No. 4691 Shubham,
departed from the police station at 8:25 PM
after making an entry in the general diary
kept at the police station. They were
assigned to patrol the division outpost area
to check for suspicious vehicles and
individuals. As soon as they reached the
Mahavir drain, they received specific
information from a informer that Imran and
Irfan, sons of Haroon, residents of 19/158,
Teela
Ajmeri
Khan,
Police
Station
Mantola, District Agra, have been running
an online betting racket from their
residence. Several other individuals are
reportedly involved with them.

 3.1. It was also informed that
multiple cases have already been registered
against them, but they have no fear of the
law. These individuals earn lakhs and
crores of rupees through online betting,
leading local people in the Agra area to
gamble away their earnings and suffer
worsening household conditions.

3.2. Constable Shubham was sent
with the informer to verify the information
and to prepare a sketch of the location. A
short while later, Constable Shubham
reported that several individuals were
indeed conducting online betting activities
inside the house at 19/158, Teela Ajmeri
Khan, Police Station Mantola, District
Agra. He also submitted a hand-drawn
sketch of the scene, and the informer left
the location.

3.3 This information was reported
to the Station House Officer. The SubInspector-
the
complainant-
obtained
written permission for the search from the
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
senior police officers. Afterwards, with
Constable Shubham and other police
personal,
the
investigating
officer
conducted a raid.

3.4. The police party explained
the purpose of the search to nearby
residents and requested them to act as
witnesses. However, due to personal
concerns or unwillingness to get involved,
no one agreed to testify and left without
revealing their names or addresses.

3.5. The police party reached the
vicinity of house number 19/158, Teela
Ajmeri Khan, Police Station Mantola,
District Agra. At that moment, two
individuals exited the house. One of them
was holding a large mobile device. As soon
as they saw the police officers, and in order
to escape, began to run quickly in the
opposite direction. The police chased them
down the lane. During the chase, one of
them dropped a large mobile device. Upon
inspection, it was found to be a black
Samsung tablet with a broken screen.

3.6 Both individuals escaped by
taking advantage of the darkness. When the
police asked nearby people about them,
they revealed confidentially that the two
who fled were indeed Imran and Irfan, sons
of Haroon, residents of 19/158, Teela
Ajmeri Khan, Police Station Mantola,
District Agra. 3.7. The tablet recovered
from the scene was sealed on-site in a
white cloth, duly stamped, and a sample
seal was prepared. The police registered the
case, and after investigation, a charge sheet
was filed against the applicants under
Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act,
1867.

4. Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicants invited the
court's attention to the fact that the chargesheet has been filed under Section 3/4
Public Gambling Act, 1867 wherein the
maximum sentence in case of first offence
is fine not exceeding five hundred rupees
nor less than two hundred rupees and to
rigorous imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three months, and in the case of
any subsequent offence to a fine not
exceeding two thousand rupees nor less
than five hundred rupees and to rigorous
imprisonment for a term not exceeding
twelve months nor less than three months.
Therefore, the offences are non-cognizable
and can't be investigated without written
permission from the Magistrate concerned.

5. Shri Shukla further submitted that
Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. mandated that no
police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a
Magistrate having the power to try such a
case or commit the case for trial. And as in
the instant case police did not take
permission from the learned Magistrate to
commence with the investigation, thus, the
entire proceedings commenced soon after
registration of FIR become void ab initio
and placed reliance upon Keshav Lal
Thakur v. State of Bihar1 the relevant
paragraph is extracted herein below:

"3. We need not go into the
question whether in the facts of the instant
case the above view of the High Court is
proper or not for the impugned proceeding
has got to be quashed as neither the police
was entitled to investigate into the offence
in
question
nor
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate to take cognizance upon the
report submitted on completion of such
investigation. On the own showing of the
police, the offence under Section 31 of the
Act is non-cognizable and therefore the
police could not have registered a case for
such an offence under Section 154 CrPC.
Of course, the police is entitled to
investigate into a non-cognizable offence
5 All. Imran Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
317
pursuant to an order of a competent
Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC but,
admittedly, no such order was passed in the
instant case. That necessarily means, that
neither the police could investigate into the
offence in question nor submit a report on
which the question of taking cognizance
could have arisen. While on this point, it
may be mentioned that in view of the
Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, which
defines 'complaint', the police is entitled to
submit,
after
investigation,
a
report
relating to a non-cognizable offence in
which case such a report is to be treated as
a
'complaint'
of
the
police
officer
concerned, but that explanation will not be
available to the prosecution here as that
relates to a case where the police initiates
investigation into a cognizable offence -
unlike the present one - but ultimately
finds that only a non-cognizable offence
has been made out."

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the application and submitted that
there are serious allegations of gambling
against the applicants and the applicants are
habitual
offenders.
The
procedural
irregularity cannot overtake the substantive
law, and therefore, the said irregularity
would be overlooked in view of the gravity
of the offences. He next submits that there
is a criminal history of 20 cases against the
applicant no.1, Imran Khan, and 08 cases
have been registered against the applicant
no.2, Irfan Khan alias Hazi Bhola.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State and on perusal of FIR, charge sheet
and impugned summoning order, it is
admitted position that the charge sheet has
been filed under Section 3/4 of Gambling
Act, 1867 and the maximum punishment
under Section 3/4 Public Gambling Act,
1867 read with State Amendments to a fine
not exceeding two thousand rupees nor less
than five hundred rupees and to rigorous
imprisonment for a term not exceeding
twelve months nor less than three months
even for subsequent offence, means the
offences are cognizable.

8. For clarity, Sections 3 and 4 of
the Public Gambling Act, 1867 are
reproduced herein below:

 "3. Penalty for owning or
keeping, or having charge of a gaminghouse.-Whoever, being the owner or
occupier, or having the use, of any house,
walled enclosure, room or place situated
within the limits to which this Act applies,
opens, keeps or uses the same as a common
gaming-house; and whoever, being the
owner or occupier of any such house,
walled enclosure, room or place as
aforesaid, knowingly or wilfully permits the
same to be opened, occupied, used or kept
by any other person as a common gaminghouse; and whoever has the care or
management of, or in any manner assists in
conducting, the business of any house,
walled enclosure, room or place as
aforesaid, opened, occupied, used or kept
for the purpose aforesaid; and whoever
advances or furnishes money for the
purpose
of
gaining
with
persons
frequenting such house, walled enclosure,
room or place; shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding two-hundred rupees, or to
imprisonment of either description,1 as
defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), for any term not exceeding three
months.2

4. Penalty for being found in
gaming-house.-Whoever is found in any
such house, walled enclosure, room or
place, playing or gaming with cards, dice,
counters, money or other instruments of
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
gaming, or is found there present for the
purpose of gaming, whether playing for any
money, wager, stake or otherwise, shall be
liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred
rupees, or to imprisonment of either
description,1 as defined in the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), for any term not
exceeding one month,2 and any person
found in any common gaming-house during
any gaming or playing therein shall be
presumed, until the contrary be proved, to
have been there for the purpose of
gaming."

9. In 1952, in Section 3 for the
words "two hundred rupees" substituted by
the words "five hundred rupees" by U.P.
Act 34 of 1952 and by the U.P. Act of 21 of
1961 the last paragraph of section 3 has
been substituted by "shall be liable - in case
of first offence to fine not exceeding five
hundred rupees nor less than two hundred
rupees and to rigorous imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three months; and in
case of any subsequent offence to fine
exceeding two thousand rupees nor less
than five hundred rupees and to rigorous
imprisonment for a term not exceeding
twelve months nor less than three months".

10. In section 4 of the Act, for the
words "one hundred rupees", substitute the
words three hundred rupees" by U.P. Act,
34 of 1952 w.e.f. 5.12.1952 and words
beginning with " shall be liable to a fine"
and ending with "exceeding one month"
was deleted and substituted by "shall be
liable-in case of a first offence to a fine not
exceeding three hundred rupees nor less
than one hundred rupees or to rigorous
imprisonment for any term not exceeding
one month, and in the case of any
subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding
five hundred rupees nor less than two
hundred
rupees
and
to
rigorous
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months or less than one month".

11. Lastly, the state of Uttar Pradesh
had enhanced the sentence in corresponding
sections in the year 1961 by bringing state
amendment through U.P. Act of 21 of 1961
in the Public Gambling Act, 1867, whereby
the punishment was enhanced accordingly;
for a first offence, the offender may have to
pay a fine between rupees one hundred and
three hundred and may be awarded rigorous
imprisonment for up to one month. For any
later offences, the maximum fine shall be two
thousand rupees, and the offender may be
awarded rigorous imprisonment for twelve
months.

12. The Public Gambling Act,
1867, is a colonial-era law enacted by the
British Government in India to regulate
gambling activities and suppress public
gambling houses. At the time of its
enactment, the Act addressed conventional
gambling - card games, betting on dice,
and
similar
forms
held
in physical
gambling houses. Under sections 3 and 4, it
criminalized
operating
or
visiting
a
common gaming house. The maximum
penalty imposed under the Act was a fine
of ₹500 or imprisonment for up to three
months - a substantial deterrent in the year
1867, but negligible today.

13. The Public Gambling Act is a
pre-digital law. It makes no mention of
digital platforms, servers, or cross-border
transactions. Its enforcement is limited to
physical gambling houses and has no
jurisdiction
over
virtual
gambling
environments accessed via mobile phones,
computers, or offshore servers.

14. The Act in the Era of Online
Gambling has lost its impact and relevance
5 All. Imran Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
319
as there is no definition or regulation of
online gambling. Negligible penalties- a
maximum
two
thousand
fine
and
imprisonment up to twelve months, that too
for subsequent offence- do not deter largescale illegal operations. There is a lack of
clarity on the legal status of fantasy sports,
poker, and e-sports. Jurisdictional issues
also arise, as online platforms operate
across state, national, and international
boundaries.

15. The legal framework governing
gambling
has
undergone
significant
transformation worldwide, particularly in
response to the rapid expansion of digital
platforms. The UK Gambling Act of 2005,
which represents, as argued, a modern and
adaptive approach to regulating both offline
and
online
gambling
activities.
This
legislation encompasses a wide range of
provisions,
including
licensing
requirements, age verification protocols,
responsible advertising standards, and antimoney laundering measures.

15.1 A central feature of the Act
is the establishment of the UK Gambling
Commission,
which
serves
as
the
regulatory authority overseeing gambling
operators. Under this framework, online
casinos and betting platforms are legal,
provided they obtain the appropriate
licenses. The Act also places a strong
emphasis on consumer protection, offering
tools such as self-exclusion programs to
promote responsible gambling.

15.2
In
2023,
the
UK
Government proposed further reforms
aimed at enhancing player safety, including
affordability checks for online gamblers
and stricter regulations for online slot
machines, reflecting the dynamic nature of
regulatory needs in the digital age.
16. Other countries have adopted
varying approaches. Australia, for example,
regulates
online
gambling under
the
Interactive Gambling Act of 2001, which
allows certain types of online betting while
prohibiting others. In contrast, the United
States adopts a fragmented model, where
online gambling legality is determined at
the state level-states like New Jersey and
Pennsylvania have fully legalized and
regulated
online
casinos.
Meanwhile,
countries such as Singapore and South
Korea enforce strict controls, permitting
only limited and highly regulated forms of
digital betting.

17. The rise of fantasy sports
platforms
like
Dream11,
MPL,
and
My11Circle has reshaped the Indian digital
gaming landscape. In response to the
sector's rapid growth and associated legal
ambiguities, NITI Aayog, the Indian
Government's premier policy think tank,
released a policy paper titled "Guiding
Principles for the Uniform National-Level
Regulation of Online Fantasy Sports
Platforms in India" in December 2020.
While the document marked a significant
step in acknowledging and formalizing a
fast-evolving industry.

18. "Betting and gambling" in
India are governed under the Constitution
as a "State Subject," which means that the
state legislatures have the exclusive power
to make laws on matters related to betting
and gambling under Entry 34 of the State
List in the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the
guidelines framed are not binding at the
state level. Fantasy sports in India lie in a
legal grey area, straddling the line between
games of skill (permitted) and games of
chance
(prohibited
under
the
Public
Gambling Act, 1867). Multiple High Court
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rulings - notably in Punjab and Haryana,
Rajasthan, and Bombay - have recognized
fantasy sports as a game of skill, thereby
legitimizing
platforms
under
Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India -right
to practice any profession.

19. The GST Council in its 50th
Meeting has also imposed a 28% tax on the
full face value of bets in online gaming,
casinos, and horse racing represents a
significant policy shift aimed at increasing
tax revenues and standardizing the taxation
framework in it.

20. There are other key concerns as
well, ignored by the current prevailing
framework in India, like:

20.1 Online gaming platforms use
psychologically manipulative algorithms2,
reward
systems,
and
notifications
to
encourage prolonged use. This has led to a
rise
in
gaming
addiction,
anxiety,
depression, and social isolation, especially
among adolescents and young adults.

20.2 Students are increasingly
distracted by online gaming, often at the
cost of their academic performance and
family relationships. The disruption of
sleep cycles, lack of discipline, and social
withdrawal are common consequences.

20.3 The illusion of "easy money"
through real-money gaming attracts many
from low- and middle-income families.
Once trapped, users may incur huge
financial losses, leading to loans, theft, or
even suicidal tendencies.

20.4 Online gaming has been
linked to cybercrime, including data theft,
cheating, and even blackmail. Illegal
betting rings often operate under the facade
of legitimate gaming platforms.

20.5 Easy access to digital
payments- through credit cards, UPI, and
mobile wallets- makes it effortless to spend
large sums on gaming apps. These
platforms exploit dopamine-driven reward
mechanisms, pushing users into a vicious
cycle of debt and compulsive gambling.

20.6
Many
online
betting
operations
function
outside
India's
jurisdiction, with servers located abroad
and
transactions
routed
through
unregulated
channels.
This
poses
challenges
for
law
enforcement
and
increases the risk of money laundering,
financial fraud, and terror funding.

21.
Therefore,
modern,
technology-sensitive legislation is urgently
needed to address the psychological, social,
and national security implications of online
gaming.
Comprehensive
reform
must
include
centralised
regulation,
age
restrictions, financial controls, platform
accountability,
and
public
awareness
campaigns to safeguard the well-being of
India's youth and society.

22. The inherent powers of the
High Court empower it to intervene when
necessary to secure the ends of justice. It
ensures that no injustice is caused by the
rigid application of procedural laws. It
reinforces the principle that the justice is
not defeated because of the procedural
requirements.

23. Thus, till a robust legislative
framework is enacted recognizing the
digital nature of gaming and imposing clear
regulatory
safeguards,
the
fines
and
imprisonment terms may be revised in line
with inflation and the scale of operations in
Uttar Pradesh by bringing necessary
amendments in the existing law, thereby
making the offence non-cognizable.

24. Based upon the foregoing
discussions, it's high time that a legislative
5 All. Mohnish Jain & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
321
framework be enacted to meet the
transformative changes in online betting
and gaming. In the light of critical issue
raised herein, this Court, exercising its writ
jurisdiction and the authority vested in the
High Court, takes a suo motu cognizance
and hereby directs the State Government to
constitute a High-Powered Committee,
comprising Prof. K.V. Raju, Economic
Advisor to the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, as its chairperson, to examine all
relevant factors, particularly those outlined
above comprehensively to meet out the
legislative necessity arising from the
transformed
socio-technological
concerning online betting and gaming. The
Committee may include the Principal
Secretary, State Tax as Member Secretary,
besides other experts as Members. Their
collective input should be used to develop a
comprehensive
and
well-structured
legislative framework for regulating and
monitoring online gaming and public
betting.

25. So far as merits of the present
case is concerned, I find force in the
argument of learned counsel for the
applicants that the investigation has been
barred
by
section
155
(2)
Cr.P.C.,
therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by
the police stands vitiated in law, thus, the
impugned charge sheet dated 27.12.2022
arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2022,
under Section 3/4 Public Gambling Act,
1867, registered at P.S. Mantola, District
Agra, as well as impugned summoning
order dated 23.05.2023, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra are hereby
quashed with the liberty to police to initiate
fresh investigation after complying with
existing provisions of law.

26.
Accordingly,
the
present
application stands allowed.
27. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to transmit a copy of this order
forthwith
to
the
Chief
Secretary,
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
for
compliance.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 321
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 30850 of 2024
With
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 30822 of 2024

Mohnish Jain & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Balbeer Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Abhinav Jaiwal, G.A., Ravi Anand Agarwal,
Shreya Gupta

Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 -
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Sections 7, 8, 9, 138, 141 & 142 - Indian
Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 2, 2(a),
4, 11, 18, 19 & 22 - The Insolvency And
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 14 -
Application
-
challenging
summoning
the
summoning orders and dismissal of criminal
revision -- under Section 138 of the NI Act,
1881 - dishonour of four cheques, due to
insufficient funds - Complaint Case - summon
orders - Criminal Revision - dismissed - plea
taken that the complaint was filed by a partner
without authorization from the firm, which was
the actual payee, - and the absence of firm
authorization violates Sections 19 and 22 of the
Indian Partnership Act - Additionally, they argue
that proceedings are barred under Section 14 of