HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38106 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4192 of 2025 (wrongly mentioned as 2028), Smt. Indrawati Devi Vs. Prajjawal Pratap Singh, under section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station: Kotwali Hata, District: Kushinagar,passed by Civil Judge (Jr. 2nd Additional Division)/J.M., Kasya, Kushinagar as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2025 pending before 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/J.M., Kasya, Kushinagar. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 11.07.2025 by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque, which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice dated 26.03.2025 and a complaint and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 23.07.2025 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that first of all applicant has not been put to notice at a pre- cognizance stage in view of the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS. He seeks to rely upon a decision of a coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court in Prateek Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 8212. He further submits that whatever liability is, the applicant seeks to make the payment subject to return of the cheque. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prajjawal Pratap Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, the complaint stood lodged on 11.07.2025 with relation of dishonouring of the cheque. The question whether the applicant be put to notice at a pre-cognizance stage in view of the provisions contained under first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS is concerned, the same is no more res integra, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment in the case Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishor S. Borcar and another, Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010, passed on 25.09.2025 had the occasion to consider the said aspect in paragraph-36-E, which reads as under:- "36. .... E. Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490 has taken the view that since NI Act is a special enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the accused before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of BNSS) of complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage." 7. Thus there is no requirement to put to notice the applicant at a pre- cognizance stage. In so far as the other submissions with relation to the fact that the applicant is ready to make the payment, subject to return of the cheque is concerned, it is for the applicant to seek compounding of the offences. 8. With the said observations, the application is disposed of. October 6, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 38106 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad