# Keshav Kumar @ Kalu & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 828
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 23347 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/keshav-kumar-kalu-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52722
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Section
138
of
Negotiable
Instrument Act as well as implication of the
same person under Section 506, 420 IPC on the
basis of same set of allegations.

Headnotes
Code of criminal Procedure-sec 300(1)-
Mandate of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is crystal
clear- if the applicants are ultimately found
guilty of dishonour of the instrument executed
by them- such act would fall within the ambit of
Section 420 IPC- for which they are already
facing prosecution in pursuance of present casebut before final outcome of Case u/s 138 N.I.
Act-the determination of such culpability would
be premature and proceeding with the trial
under Sections 506 and 420 IPC at this stage
would
serve
no
meaningful
purpose-
cognizance/summoning order- along with entire
proceedings-u/s 420, 506 IPC- set aside.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Learned counsel for opposite party No.2
has not relied upon any medical report nor
any doctor is shown to have been examined
before the court concerned with regard to
any bodily pain, disease or infirmity. In
view of aforesaid, no offence under Section
323 IPC is made out against applicant
Nos.2 to 6.

35. In view of above mentioned
reasoning and conclusion, the summoning
order dated 7.6.2017 as well as criminal
proceedings arising out of Complaint Case
No.510 of 2017 (Arpita Tarmali Vs
Bhavesh Singh and others) arising out of
Case Crime No.78 of 2015 under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed
in respect of applicant Nos.2 to 6, namely,
Ram Nihore Singh, Smt. Tara Devi, Smt.
Bhavna Devi, Richa and Monika.

36. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 828
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 23347 of 2025

Keshav Kumar @ Kalu & Anr.
.....Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Durga Prasad Tiwari, Shrawan Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
Issue for consideration
Applicability of two simultaneous proceedings in
pursuance
of
Section
138
of
Negotiable
Instrument Act as well as implication of the
same person under Section 506, 420 IPC on the
basis of same set of allegations.

Headnotes
Code of criminal Procedure-sec 300(1)-
Mandate of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is crystal
clear- if the applicants are ultimately found
guilty of dishonour of the instrument executed
by them- such act would fall within the ambit of
Section 420 IPC- for which they are already
facing prosecution in pursuance of present casebut before final outcome of Case u/s 138 N.I.
Act-the determination of such culpability would
be premature and proceeding with the trial
under Sections 506 and 420 IPC at this stage
would
serve
no
meaningful
purpose-
cognizance/summoning order- along with entire
proceedings-u/s 420, 506 IPC- set aside.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. J. Vedhasingh Vs. R.M. Govindan and others
[2022 0 Supreme(SC) 665]

List of Acts
1. Code of criminal Procedure;
2.Indian Penal Code
3. Negotiable Instrument Act

List of Keywords
Summon; under the obligation to pay the
amount in question to be realized in pursuance
of the instrument received by opposite party
no.2, Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. applicability
of two simultaneous proceedings

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Durga Prasad Tiwari,
Shrawan Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Durga Prasad Tiwari
along with Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey,
10 All. Keshav Kumar @ Kalu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
829
learned counsel for applicants and learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing on behalf of State.

2. The present application under
Section 528 BNSS has been preferred for
seeking
quashing
of
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
03.03.2025 and entire proceedings of Case
No.2045 of 2025 (State Vs. Keshav @
Kalu and another), arising out of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024, under Section 420,
506 IPC, Police Station Sahar, District
Bulandshahar, pending in the court of
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahar.

3. Learned counsel for applicant raised
legal issue in respect of applicability of two
simultaneous proceedings in pursuance of
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
as well as implication of the same person
under Section 506, 420 IPC on the basis of
same set of allegations, therefore, process
to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is
hereby dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for applicants
submitted that implication of applicants in
two simultaneous proceedings i.e. in Case
No.16559 of 2024, under Section 138 of
N.I. Act which was instituted on dated
19.07.2024
wherein
applicant
was
summoned vide order dated 14.02.2025
after recording statements under Section
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and in subsequent
proceedings which was initiated by way of
lodging FIR on dated 11.10.2024 on similar
set of facts which was registered as Case
Crime No.918 of 2024, under Section 506,
420 IPC wherein after submission of
chargesheet
on
dated
24.12.2024,
cognizance of offence was taken and
applicant was summoned vide impugned
order dated 03.03.2025 by learned court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar.

5. Learned counsel for applicant
submitted that while adjudicating the same
controversy involved in the case of J.
Vedhasingh Vs. R.M. Govindan and
others
[2022
0
Supreme(SC)
665],
Hon'ble the Apex Court formulated two
issues and referred the matter to the larger
Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to be
answered, the said two issues are as
follow:-

"(1) Whether the ratio of the
judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri
(supra) and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao
(supra) lay down the correct law? Or
The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben
Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) as followed in
M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons (supra) which is
subsequent and conflicting, lay down the
correct proposition of law?

(2) Whether on similar set of
allegations of fact the accused can be tried
for an offence under NI Act which is
special enactment and also for offences
under
IPC
unaffected
by the
prior
conviction or acquittal and, the bar of
Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for
such trial?"

6. The legal issues which have
been formulated to be answered by larger
Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, are
still pending to come up as law of land
specifically in respect of Issue No.2 which
has been underlined above.

7. Learned counsel for applicants
submitted that the questions of law which
have been formulated to be answered by
larger Bench vide order dated 11.08.2022
passed in J. Vedhasingh (supra), are
attracting the same controversy since the
applicants have already been summoned
vide order dated 14.02.2024 over the
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegation that they issued an instrument
which was dishonored and they are under
the
obligation
to
pay
a
sum
of
Rs.38,00,000/- and on the other hand,
applicants were summoned vide order
dated 03.03.2025 in pursuance of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024, under Section 506,
420 IPC on the same set of allegations and
as such, the entire proceedings arising out
of Case Crime No.918 of 2024, may be
kept in abeyance till the answer to be given
by larger Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court
in pursuance of questions formulated vide
order dated 11.08.2022 passed in J.
Vedhasingh (supra).

8. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that the
controversy is persisting in both the
simultaneous proceedings and the same has
to be dealt with according to law.

9. After having rival submissions
extended by learned counsel for parties,
specially the arguments so raised by
learned counsel for applicants which is in
shape of suggestion that proceedings
arising out of Case Crime No.918 of 2024
may be kept in abeyance till referral
questions may be answered, this Court
finds that the said matter has already been
placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
India for consideration by a larger Bench,
the decision of the larger Bench will
undoubtedly have a binding effect on all
courts across the country, but in sofar as the
present
matter
is
concerned,
the
proceedings initiated at the behest of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024 wherein the
applicants have already been summoned
vide order dated 03.03.2025 by learned
court concerned by way of observing that
prima facie offence has been made out
against applicants for putting them to trial
in respect of Section 506, 420 IPC, whereas
the subject matter of liability which has
been taken up into consideration by other
learned court concerned in respect of
proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act
wherein
applicants
have
also
been
summoned vide order dated 14.02.2025, is
still to be finalized and determined whether
the applicants are under the obligation to
pay the amount in question to be realized in
pursuance of the instrument received by
opposite party no.2, the observations made
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bulandshahar that prima facie case is made
out for putting the applicants to trial under
Section 506, 420 IPC, is still under the
clouds and the same shall be dependent
upon the outcome of proceedings of Case
No.16559 of 2024, under Section 138 of
N.I. Act wherein applicant no.1 has already
been
summoned
vide
order
dated
14.02.2025.

10. The mandate of Section 300(1)
Cr.P.C. is crystal clear and as such, there is
hardly any ambiguity in respect of
implication
of
applicants
in
two
simultaneous proceedings, but if the
applicants are ultimately found guilty of
dishonour of the instrument executed by
them, such act would fall within the ambit
of Section 420 IPC for which they are
already facing prosecution in pursuance of
Case Crime No.918 of 2024, but before
final outcome of Case No.16559 of 2024,
under
Section
138
N.I.
Act,
the
determination of such culpability would be
premature and proceeding with the trial
under Sections 506 and 420 IPC at this
stage would serve no meaningful purpose,
in case the determination of both the
learned trial courts contrary to each other,
the same will be miscarriage of justice.

11. The arguments raised by
learned counsel for applicants in respect of
10 All. Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
831
applicability of Section 300(1)
Cr.P.C., is not at all touched by this Court,
since the controversy and ambiguity of law
which has already been referred by Hon'ble
the Apex Court to the larger Bench of Apex
Court vide order dated 11.08.2022 and
answer of the same will be the law of land
which shall give light to the controversy if
so raised in future.

12.
In
sofar
as
the
present
controversy
is
concerned,
without
adjudication of Case No.16559 of 2024,
under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the
proceedings initiated in pursuance of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024 wherein the
applicants have already been summoned
vide order dated 03.03.2025, is redundant
at present since the same shall be
dependent upon the outcome of Case Crime
No.918
of
2024
and
as
such,
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
03.03.2025 along with entire proceedings
of Case No.2045 of 2025 (State Vs. Keshav
@ Kalu and another), arising out of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024, under Section 420,
506 IPC, Police Station Sahar, District
Bulandshahar, pending in the court of
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahar, is hereby set aside.

13.
Accordingly,
the
instant
application is allowed.

14. However, it is made clear that
opposite party no.2 will be at liberty to
initiate
proceedings
in
pursuance
of
sections so warranted under the law after
outcome of Case No.16559 of 2024, under
Section 138 N.I. Act which is still pending
to
be
adjudicated
by
learned
court
concerned.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 831
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY,
J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33358 of
2025

Neeraj Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Poonam, Shailendra Pratap Subodh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in the facts of the case, the applicant
accused of an offence under Section 69 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was entitled
to be released on bail, having regard to the
nature of allegations, the statements of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
of
the
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, and the applicability of the
offence of sexual intercourse on false promise of
marriage.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s.69;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- ss.180, 183 - Bail - Allegation of
sexual intercourse on false promise of
marriage - Consensual relationship -
Material
inconsistencies
in
victim's
statements - Ingredients of offence not
attracted - Bail granted.

Held:
The victim was admittedly a major and, as per
the F.I.R., was in telephonic contact with the
applicant since the year 2022. The first physical
meeting between the parties took place in the
year 2023. [Paras 3, 7]

A comparison of the F.I.R. allegations with the
statements of the victim recorded under