MOHD. TAHIR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order 14/10/2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.C.-41 (Form Resolution of Crime against Women), Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2025 (Nilofar Hides Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dtd. 30/11/2022 passed by Special Court, 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in Complaint Case No. 93156 of 2022 (Bilal Hide Supplier vs. Nilofar Hide).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated by the private respondent, who instituted Complaint Case No. 242573 of 2022 (Bilal Hide Supplier vs. Nilofar Hides) under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended that the petitioner's cheques were stolen by the respondent and subsequently misused by presenting them before the concerned bank, resulting in dishonour. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent intended to falsely implicate the petitioner in a cheque bounce case, despite there being no legally enforceable liability against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 30/11/2022 passed in the aforesaid complaint case, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2025, which too came to be dismissed on 14/10/2025. It is submitted that the courts below failed to consider the grievances and objections raised by the petitioner. It is also urged that the matter be referred to mediation for an amicable settlement.