# Rajesh Kukreja Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 857
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2776 of 2013
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kukreja-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54019
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1 All. Rajesh Kukreja Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
857
which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked
whether he pleads guilty

of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

23. As per the above mentioned sections, in case the Sessions Court did not discharge the accused as
per Section 227 Cr.P.C. or the learned Magistrate did not found any ground to discharge the accused under
Section 239 Cr.P.C., then unless the order rejecting the discharge application was challenged and stayed
by the Higher Court, the Sessions Court and the Magistrate Courts are statutory bound to frame charges
against the accused under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and 240 Cr.P.C. respectively. It is a settled provision of law
that merely filing of criminal revision or criminal appeal against any order, does not amount that the
proceedings of the said Court, has been stayed.

24. Upon considering the facts of the present case and on taking into consideration the order passed
by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of opinion that the learned Magistrate has not committed any
illegality in rejecting the said discharge application. Hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed.

25. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.

26. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all the District Courts by the Registrar
(Compliance) with a direction that the learned District Judges shall impress upon all the Judicial Officers
in the Judgeship that in case any discharge application is dismissed by the Trial Court then unless the order
rejecting the discharge application is challenged and stayed by the High Court, the Trial Courts are under
statutory duty to frame charges against the accused and merely filing of an appeal, revision or even a writ
petition against an order or judgment shall not be considered any valid or justifiable ground to say the
proceedings of a case unless the superior Court grants stay order of further proceedings.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 857
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2776 of 2013

Rajesh Kukreja ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue pertains to whether a complaint instituted u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by a person
who is neither the "payee" nor the "holder in due course" of the dishonoured cheque, is legally maintainable,
and consequently, whether the summoning order passed by the Magistrate on such a complaint is sustainable
in law..

Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 7, 9, 138, 142 - Indian penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406, 420 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 200, 202 - Against summoning order - Complainant -
Locus standi - Cognizance of offence - A complaint was instituted by M/s Krishna Hotels and
Developers through its partner against the accused for offences u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, along with allied provisions of Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that
multiple cheques of substantial amounts issued by the accused were dishonoured upon
presentation - Notably, the cheques in question were drawn in favour of "Hotel Paradise,"
whereas the complaint was filed in the name of a different entity, namely M/s Krishna Hotels
and Developers - In fact, the complaint should be filed by representative or authorized agent of
"Hotel Paradise" - Plea of - The trial court, despite initially raising a query regarding this
discrepancy, proceeded to take cognizance and summon the accused - Aggrieved thereby, the
accused filed a criminal revision challenging the summoning order primarily on the ground that
the complainant lacked locus standi, as it was neither the payee nor the holder in due course of
the dishonoured cheques. (E-11)

Held: A complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not maintainable by a third party - It must be
filed by the payee or the holder in due course of cheque - An authorized representative of the payee or holder
of cheque can initiate proceedings being the power of attorney holder or the authorized signatory of the
company but the complaint is still to be in the name of payee or holder of cheque and not in the
representatives personal capacity - A third party or a stranger with no legal title to the cheque can not file and
institute a complaint - A person who is neither payee nor holder in due course cannot file a complaint even if
he is indirectly affected by the transaction - In case of companies or firms, entity is the complainant acting
through an authorized person - The opposite party no. 2 had no locus to file the present complaint - The trial
court although in its order dated 21.11.2012 had mentioned about the said observation regarding locus of
complainant but later on did not consider the same while passing the impugned order summoning the
accused/revisionist - Accordingly, criminal revision allowed. [Paras 13, 14]

Case Law Cited
M/s Naresh Potteries v. M/s Aarti Industries and another: 2025 0 INSC 1 - distinguished

List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.; Complaint Case; Summoning order; Cognizance; ss. 7, 9, 138, 142 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881; ss. 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; ss. 200, 202 Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Representative or authorized agent; Third party or a stranger; Payee nor holder in due course;
Dishonour of cheque; Cause of action; Maintainability of complaint; Locus of complainant; Criminal revision
allowed; Impugned order quashed.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 2776 of 2013

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2013 passed by M.M. VIIIth, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.
1091/2012.

Appearances for Parties
1 All. Rajesh Kukreja Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
859
Adv. for the Revisionist:
L.M. Singh

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
Alok Kumar Yadav, Govt. Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ankur Kushwaha, Advocate,
holding brief of Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ajay
Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State/opposite party no. 1 and perused the

2. This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist - Rajesh Kukreja
with the following prayers:-

'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set
aside the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by M.M. VIIIth, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.
1091/2012 (M/s. Krishna Hotel Versus Rajesh Kukreja), in the ends of justice.'

3. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 8.8.2012 was filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels
and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey wife of Sri Virendra Dubey, against Rajesh
Kukreja, Director, Mangalam Restaurant and Hotel Pvt. Ltd., son of Ghanshamdas, for the offence
under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988, Sections 406 and 420
I.P.C. The complainant filed an affidavit dated 8.8.2012 to be read under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as her
statement. The trial court vide its order dated 21.11.2012 observed that perusal of the records
shows that a complaint has been filed by the M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through partner
Smt. Saroj Dubey whereas cheque nos. 115261, 115262, 115263, 115264, 199008, 199009,
199010, 199011, 199013, 199014 and 199015 all of Rs.2,00,000/- each, dated 15.04.2012 have
been drawn in favour of Hotel Paradise whereas the complaint has been filed by M/s. Krishna
Hotels and Developers through partner Smt. Saroj Dubey, whereas the complaint had to be filed by
Hotel Paradise through its representative. It further directed that the complainant by the next date
should clarify the same. Subsequently vide order impugned dated 26.7.2013 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar. The court concerned after considering the
complaint, the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made
out against Rajesh Kukreja and thus summoned him under the said section. The said order is thus
under challenge before this Court.

4. Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 dated 16.12.2013 and rejoinder
affidavit by the revisionist to the same dated 24.2.2014 have been filed which are on the record.

5. The dispute thus in the present matter relates to cheque nos. 115261, 115262, 115263,
115264, 199008, 199009, 199010, 199011, 199013, 199014 and 199015 all of Rs.2,00,000/- each,
dated 15.04.2012, drawn on Bank of India, Karolbagh Branch, New Delhi issued in favour of Hotel
Paradise by Mangalam Restaurant & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The argument in crux of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the proceedings of the
present matter were initiated on the basis of a complaint dated 08.08.2012 filed by M/s. Krishna
Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey adult wife of Sri Virendra Dubey
against the revisionist under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Indian Penal
Code in which the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, VIIIth, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated
21.11.2012 directed the complainant to clarify the fact that cheques in issue were drawn in the
name of Hotel Paradise but the complaint has been filed by M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers
through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey whereas the said complaint should have been filed by Hotel
Paradise or its authorized agent. It is submitted that subsequently trial court concerned vide order
the impugned dated 26.07.2013 by observing that Hotel Paradise is a unit of M/s Krishna Hotels
and Developers proceeded to summon the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
which is totally illegal and knocks out the entire prosecution as the complainant of the present
matter has no locus to initiate the proceedings. It is submitted that thus the order impugned
deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the arguments and petition
for revision vehemently and submitted that the trial court was fully convinced with the facts of the
case and thus took cognizance on the complaint after inquiry and summoned the
accused/revisionist. It is submitted while placing para-6 of the counter affidavit that Hotel Paradise
was given for marketing purpose on the agreement that 50% of the total annual turn over would be
paid to the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is the partner of
Hotel Paradise who entered into an oral contract with the revisionist for business purposes and thus
she has a locus to file the complaint. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Naresh Potteries vs. M/s Aarti Industries and
another: 2025 0 INSC 1, (page-14) and has submitted that the Apex Court has held that if there is a
dispute with regards to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized to do so, it would
be open for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial
and thus the correct situation would be that the revisionist should take up the said objection at the
stage of trial to be decided by the trial court. It is submitted that as such the present revision be
dismissed.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident
that the dispute in the present matter relates to cheque nos. 115261, 115262, 115263, 115264,
199008, 199009, 199010, 199011, 199013, 199014 and 199015 all of Rs.2,00,000/- each, dated
15.04.2012, which were issued from Bank of India, Karolbagh Branch, New Delhi in favour of
Hotel Paradise. The said cheques stood dishonored. A complaint regarding the same was filed on
which initially the trial court raised a query regarding the locus of the complainant but later on took
cognizance and summoned the accused/revisionist vide the order impugned. The same is under
challenge before this Court.

9. The arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist is with regards to locus of the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 to file the said complaint. The complaint in the present matter has
been filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey wife of Sri
Virendra Dubey, against Rajesh Kukreja, Director, Mangalam Restaurant and Hotel Pvt. Ltd., son
of Ghanshamdas, mentioning therein in para-1 of the same that she is the owner of M/s. Paradise
1 All. Rajesh Kukreja Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
861
Hotel and Restaurant, situated at House No.16/62, Civil Lines, Kanpur. The Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act') in its Section 142 states regarding cognizance of
offence. The same reads as under:-

'Cognizance of offences.

142. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974),'

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except
upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of
the cheque;

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action
arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:

(c) [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the
prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making
a complaint within such period;]

(d) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class
shall try any offence punishable under section 138.'

10. Section 7 of the N.I. Act describes 'Drawer', 'Drawee', 'Drawee in case of need', 'Acceptor',
'Acceptor for honour' and 'Payee'. The same reads as under:-

'7. "Drawer", "Drawee"- The maker of a bill of exchange or cheque is called the
"drawer"; the person thereby directed to pay is called the "drawee".

"Drawee in case of need"- When in the bill or in any indorsement thereon the name of
any person is given in addition to the drawee to be resorted to in case of need, such person is called
a "drawee in case of need".

"Acceptor"- After the drawee of a bill has signed his assent upon the bill, or, if there are
more parts thereof than one, upon one of such parts, and delivered the same, or given notice of such
signing to the holder or to some person on his behalf, he is called the "acceptor".

"Acceptor for honour"-When a bill of exchange has been noted or protested for nonacceptance or for better security, and any person accepts it supra protest for honour of the drawer or
of any one of the indorsers, such person is called an "acceptor for honour".

"Payee"-The person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is
by the instrument directed to be paid, is called the "payee".'

11. Section 9 of the N.I. Act defines 'holder in due course' which reads as under:-
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

'9. 'Holder in due course'.''Holder in due course' means any person who for
consideration became the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to
bearer, or the payee or indorsee thereof, if 1[payable to order,]

before the amount mentioned in it became payable, and without having sufficient cause to
believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derived his title.'

12. In so far as the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the
case of M/s Naresh Potteries (Supra) is concerned, the facts therein are distinguishable with that
of the present case. Perusal of para-26 of the said judgement goes to show that in the said case the
complaint was filed by M/s Naresh Potteries through its Manager and Authority-letter holder. The
cheque in the said matter was issued from the account of M/s Aarti Industries in the name of M/s
Naresh Potteries and thus Naresh Potteries was the holder of the cheque in due course. The fact
thus in the said matter are clearly distinguishable with that of the present matter and as such the
said judgement would thus not be of any help to the opposite party no. 2 in the present matter.

13. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not
maintainable by a third party. It must be filed by the payee or the holder in due course of cheque.
Section 138 of the Act creates the offence of cheque dishonour. Section 142(1)(a) of the Act states
clearly that a complaint can be made only by a payee or the holder of cheque in due course. The
payee is the person in whose favour cheque is drawn. A holder in due course is a person who
lawfully receives the cheque for consideration and becomes entitled to the amount mentioned
therein (Section 7 and 9 of the Act). An authorized representative of the payee or holder of cheque
can initiate proceedings being the power of attorney holder or the authorized signatory of the
company but the complaint is still to be in the name of payee or holder of the cheque and not in the
representatives personal capacity. A third party or a stranger with no legal title to the cheque can
not file and institute a complaint. A person who is neither payee nor holder in due course cannot
file a complaint even if he is indirectly affected by the transaction. A complaint through a third
party being an attorney holder or a manager is valid only if they are duly authorized and the
complainant remains the payee or holder of the cheque. In case of companies or firms, entity is the
complainant acting through an authorized person. Thus conclusion which can be drawn is that
under the Negotiable Instruments Act a complaint by a third party in their own name is not
maintainable unless that third party qualifies as holder in due course or acts merely as an authorized
representative of the payee or the holder of the cheque.

14. From the discussion as above, it is clear that the opposite party no. 2 had no locus to file
the present complaint. The trial court although in its order dated 21.11.2012 had mentioned about
the said observation regarding locus of the complainant but later on did not consider the same while
passing the order impugned summoning the accused/revisionist.

15. The order impugned dated 26.7.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8,
Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1091/2012 (M/s. Krishna Hotel Versus Rajesh Kukreja) is
hereby quashed.

16. The present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
1 All. Brijmohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
863

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 863
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5100 of 2022

Brijmohan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court u/s 125 Cr.P.C., granting
maintenance to the wife, suffers from any perversity, illegality, warranting interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly in light of husband's contentions regarding alleged
desertion by the wife, her purported independent income, and his asserted lack of sufficient
means.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 3⁄4 - Maintenance - Quantum of - Revisional jurisdiction -
Scope of - The criminal revision arose out of proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C., wherein opposite
party/wife instituted a maintenance application against her husband/revisionist before the
Family Court asserting that their marriage was solemnized on 17.02.2012 according to Hindu
rites and that subsequent to marriage she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on
account of dowry demands, ultimately being ousted from her matrimonial home on 23.07.2013 -
She further alleged that an FIR under various sections of IPC and sections of Dowry Prohibition
Act had been lodged against the husband and his family members and that she had no
independent source of income to sustain herself, whereas the husband was possessed of
sufficient means - The husband denied the allegations, contending that she had deserted him
without sufficient cause and that she was educated and earning through tuition and tailoring
work, thereby disentitling her from maintenance - Upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance, which
order was assailed by the husband before the High Court. (E-11)

Held: The revisionist has sufficient source of income and he is liable to maintain his wife/opposite party no.2
and the finding of the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity or
illegality - A perusal of the impugned order shows that opposite party no.2 was ordered maintenance of
Rs.3000/- per months from the date of application up to the date of order and Rs.5000/- per month from the
date of order - Looking into the status of both the parties, the maintenance amount awarded by Trail Court is
not excessive - Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality or infirmity - Hence,
no interference is warranted - As a result, the revision, being devoid of merits, is dismissed and the impugned
order dated 06.09.2022 is affirmed - Accordingly, the interim order passed on 04.04.2023 is vacated. [Paras
34 to 36]

Case Law Cited