Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21522 = 2026:AHC:61655
Decided on: 25.03.2026
Counsel for Petitioner(s):
Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
G.A.
***
Discharge application – Maintainability -- Complaint u/s 138 NI Act -- Accused not entitled to seek discharge in a summons case, except where the Magistrate converts the summons case into a warrant case -- Discharge application dismissed.
***
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act 26 of 1881), Section 138 – Discharge application – Summons case – Petitioner sought discharge on the ground that the company had not been impleaded as a party to the complaint -- Trial court dismissed the discharge application, and the revisional court upheld the order – Held, accused cannot file a discharge application in a summons case, except where the Magistrate exercises discretion to convert the summons case into a warrant case.
(Para 2-6)
***
ANIL KUMAR-X, J. –
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents 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, 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. It was submitted that both courts 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.
Petition dismissed.
********