Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24215 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15588 of 2024 Petitioner :- Gautam Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the impugned orders dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 6, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Revision no. 66/2024 (Gautam Sharma Versus Shri Balaji Furniture and Plywood and another) and summoning order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Magistrate, Court no. 3, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint case no. 177/2020 (Shri Balaji Furniture versus Gautam Sharma) u/s 138 N.I. Act, Police Station - Sector-20 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that opposite party no. 2 preferred a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against petitioner before learned A.C.M.M.-IInd, Gautam Budh Nagar on dated 02.08.2019 with the allegation that regarding some financial liability when petitioner gave a cheque to opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 presented it before the concerned Bank, the same was returned by the Bank with remark that "account has been closed". Over the said complaint, learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner vide order dated 16.05.2023. Being aggrieved with order dated 16.05.2023, petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before learned Session Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar but the same has been rejected vide order dated 19.09.2024 which has been challenged through the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that opposite party no. 2 stated in paragraph no.. 6 of complaint that he sent a legal notice to applicant through his counsel on dated 15.07.2019 through registered post but he did not mentioned the date on which legal notice was served upon the petitioner. The complaint has been preferred in violation of Section 138 (b), (c) of N.I. Act. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition. 6. During course of argument, a precise query has been raised before learned counsel for the petitioner that whether liability of petitioner raised through the complaint at the behest of opposite party no. 2 is being challenged, if yes, then on what grounds, but the same has been replied in negative by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and after perusing the records this Court is of the opinion that once petitioner is admitting the liability towards opposite party no. 2, no cause of action survives in favour of petitioner to challenge the legality of impugned order at this stage. Moreover, at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241 it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". 8. None of the grounds raised through the instant petition are convincing enough so as to attract interference of this Court. 9. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. The order summoning the accused petitioner passed by the trial court indicates that the same has been passed taking due consideration of the material available on record. The order passed by the court below issuing process thus does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Furthermore, there is no illegality found in the order passed by the revisional court affirming the summoning order of the Magistrate. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad