SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) The applicant-complainant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 10.3.2016, passed by the revisional court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.6, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2014, whereby the summoning order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ghazipur in Case No. 175 of 2011 (Rajiv Kumar Rai v. Yashwant Singh) summoning the accused/opposite party no.2 in proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been set aside and the matter remanded.
(2.) The facts briefly is that the opposite party no.2 is having brick-kiln, the complainant supplied charcoal to the opposite party no.2, for payment of the sum due cheques were issued, upon presentation to the Bank, the cheques were returned by the bank making an endorsement that signature do not match. After lapse of statutory period of notice, the opposite party no.2 did not pay the sum, consequently, the present complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate upon recording statement of applicant under Section 200 Cr.P.C and statement of his witnesses under Section 202 summoned the opposite party no.2, aggrieved, the summoning order was assailed in revision by the opposite party no.2, the revisional court allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 10.3.2016 and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to decide afresh.
(3.) The sole contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the revisional court committed an error in holding that the bank by returning the cheque endorsing that the signature does not match would not constitute an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that dishonour of cheque for the reason that signature of the drawer did not match with the specimen signature available with the Bank would attract section 138 of N.I. Act.;