JUDGMENT : 1. As per the office report dated 09.05.2022 & report of S.H.O., P.S. Gomtinagar, District Lucknow dated 25.02.2022, the notice has already been served on the opposite party No.4, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed with the prayer to quash the revisional order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Room No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.828 of 2014 as well as summoning order dated 22.06.2013 and subsequent proceedings and orders passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Room No.28, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3174 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant approached before this Court against the summoning order dated 22.06.2013 in Complaint Case No.3174 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow which was challenged in petition (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3128 of 2014 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to file revision before the court of Session against the summoning order. He further submitted that in the aforesaid application, this Court also observed that in the case of Rajendra Prasad Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Crl. Misc. Case No.2911 of 2014 it is observed that against the order of revisional court, application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) can be filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant filed revision by challenging the summoning order, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.828 of 2014 in the Court of Session, Lucknow and was transferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Thereafter, notice was issued to the complainant, but no any objection was filed and the matter was heard and decided by way of impugned order dated 21.05.2018 rejecting the revision by ignoring the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act. He further submitted that in the complaint in question, it is alleged by the complainant that for construction of house of the applicant, bricks and other building material worth Rs.65,00,000/- was supplied to the applicant and in lieu thereof, the applicant made the part payment of the sum of Rs. He further submitted that in the complaint in question, it is alleged by the complainant that for construction of house of the applicant, bricks and other building material worth Rs.65,00,000/- was supplied to the applicant and in lieu thereof, the applicant made the part payment of the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-through Cheque No.506562 of ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar Branch, Lucknow, dated 15.02.2013, but when it was presented in the Bank for clearance, the said cheque was returned with the remark "Alterations in date". He further submits that legal notice was given by the counsel for the complainant in which this fact is stated that the cheque was returned due to alteration in the date. In the aforesaid notice, reply was given by the applicant. He further submitted that house of the applicant was constructed in the year of 2004 and completion certificate was issued by Architect on 25.03.2004. He further submitted that father of the complainant, namely, Shri N.P. Singh was working as Government servant and as part time, he was also associated with the real estate business. One plot was shown by Shri N.P. Singh to the applicant and for the purchase of said plot, as an advance, two cheques bearing No.506561 and 506562 were handed over by the applicant to him, but later on, idea for purchasing the said plot was dropped by the applicant and father of the complainant informed to applicant that the aforesaid two cheques were lost. Thereafter, the applicant informed in writing to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow on 08.04.2011 and also informed to the Manager of ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on the same day about missing of cheques. He further submitted that by way of interpolation in the dates of cheque, one cheque was represented by the complainant before the bank, which was returned due to alteration in the date. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Section 138 of N.I. Act. The provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act is being reproduced as under:- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Section 138 of N.I. Act. The provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act is being reproduced as under:- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. —Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 19 [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 20 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." He further submitted that the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act clearly provides that complaint can be filed only on the charge that the cheque is returned on the ground of insufficient amount, but court below failed to appreciate the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A.R. Chellappan vs. A.R.E. Thirugnanam in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2016 and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Babu Mathew, Proprietor, Babu Mathew and Co., Mathew Sons Building vs. Rajan and State of Kerela in Criminal Appeal No.1245 of 2006 that the material alteration in the cheque renders the cheque void as per the provision of Section 87 of N.I. Act and in the present case, the cheque is returned on the ground of alteration in date. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Another (2009) 6 SCC 72 and submitted that no complaint of insufficient funds is raised by the complainant and it was for the Bank only to say so, as the complainant is not supposed to have knowledge in regard to the amount available in the account of the applicant. 8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below on the complaint, but he does not dispute the fact that cheque was returned due to alteration in the date and provision of Section 138 N.I. Act provides that complaint is to be filed for the charge of insufficient amount in the bank account. 9. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the pleadings of the application and its enclosures including the complaint and return memo of the bank and cheques etc, it is evident that Section 138 of N.I. Act clearly provides that offence under Section 138 of the Act is only made out if the amount is not sufficient to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account and Section 87 of N.I. Act provides that any material alteration of negotiable instrument renders the same void as in the present case, it is not a case of complainant that the insufficient amount was found in the bank account of the applicant to honour the cheque, but the cheque was returned due to alterations in the cheque as the Hon'ble Apex court, in the case of Raj Kumar Narain vs. State of N.C.T. Delhi and Another (supra), has observed that if there is no allegation in the complaint that there was insufficient funds in the bank account of the applicant and as it was for the bank only to say so as the complainant is not supposed to have knowledge of the amount available in the account of the applicant, and in the present case there is no endorsement of signature of the drawer on the cheque over the alteration, as the notice is already served on the opposite party No.4 but no one has put in appearance on his behalf and it is also evident from the impugned order that the learned court below has rejected the revision without considering the provision of Section 138 r/w Section 87 of N.I. Act and the learned court below has also committed error in not appreciating the contents of Section 138 r/w Section 87 of N.I. Act, therefore, the present application is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the revisional order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Room No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.828 of 2014 as well as summoning order dated 22.06.2013 and subsequent proceedings and order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Room No.28, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3174 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow are hereby set aside. 11. 11. Office is directed to communicated this order to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Room No.28, Lucknow for information.