Rajesh Kukreja V. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026
Section 142 explicitly requires the complaint to be made by payee/holder; third-party complaints are legally invalid.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
29 January 2026
Judges
Justice Samit Gopal
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Complaint filed on August 8, 2012, by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through partner Saroj Dubey.
-
Allegation: Rajesh Kukreja, Director of Mangalam Restaurant and Hotel Pvt. Ltd., dishonoured eleven cheques totaling ₹22 lakhs, committing offences under Section 138 NI Act and Sections 406, 420 IPC.
-
Cheques were drawn in favour of Hotel Paradise, not M/s. Krishna Hotels.
-
Metropolitan Magistrate initially questioned the complainant’s locus standi.
-
Summoning order by trial court in July 2013, accepted the complainant’s claim that Hotel Paradise was a unit of Krishna Hotels.
-
Kukreja challenged the summoning order before the High Court.
Issues
-
Whether a complaint under Section 138 NI Act is maintainable by a third party who is indirectly affected by the cheque transaction?
-
Whether only the payee or holder in due course of the cheque can initiate proceedings under Section 138?
-
Whether an authorised representative (POA holder or authorised signatory) can file the complaint in the name of the payee or holder in due course?
-
Whether M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers, through its partner, had locus to file the complaint when the cheques were drawn in favour of Hotel Paradise?
Held
-
Complaint under Section 138 must be filed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque.
-
Third parties have no legal standing to file such complaints.
-
Authorised representatives can act only in the name of the payee/holder in due course.
-
Summoning order by the trial court set aside, complaint quashed.
Analysis
-
Court’s reasoning: Section 142 explicitly requires the complaint to be made by payee/holder; third-party complaints are legally invalid.
-
Definition of payee and holder in due course under Sections 7 and 9 of NI Act.
-
Section 138 offences require strict locus standi for filing complaints.
-
Reinforces the requirement of strict compliance with Section 138 procedures.
-
Clarifies that indirectly affected parties cannot misuse Section 138 to file complaints.
-
Sets precedent on the limitations of authorised representatives and third-party complaints.