Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62384 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44095 of 2024 Applicant :- Sudha Devi Alias Sudha Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Khare,Shishir Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Motilal, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by learned court of Judicial Magistrate First, Bhadohi Gyanpur in Complaint No. 101 of 2018 "Sudha Tiwari Vs. Yogeshwar" and further stay the consequences of the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2023 "Sudha Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another". It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the learned court concern to initiate proceeding under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the opposite party No.2". 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no. 2 on 02.02.2018 regarding dishonoring of cheques, a statutory demand notice came to be issued by the applicant addressed to the opposite party no. 2 dated 19.01.2018 and the complaint was preferred on 02.02.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Magistrate on 22.03.2018 summoned the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act, however, the complaint stood rejected on 01.02.2023 by the Magistrate on the premise that there was nothing on record to substantiate that the statutory demand notice dated 19.01.2018 stood served upon the opposite party no. 2 and even before lapsing of 15 days of period for making payment the complaint stood lodged on 02.02.2018. 4. Assailing the said order, the applicant had filed a criminal Revision No. 36 of 2023 which also met with the same fate on 12.09.2024. 5. Questioning both the orders, the present application has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are several grounds of attack to the impugned orders but according to him, sheet anchor of his argument based upon the fact that the complaint ought not to have been rejected particularly when the same was stated to be premature as the Magistrate ought to have awaited maturity or to have returned the complaint for filing later and its mere presentation at an earlier need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer right upon the accused to absolve himself from criminal liability. Reliance has been placed upon in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr 2000 (7) SCC 183. At this juncture, learned counsel submits that the applicant shall be filing a fresh complaint and, thus, liberty be accorded. 7. Learned AGA submits that if the law permits filing of a complaint then there is no need of any liberty. 8. Considering the submissions so made across the bar, this Court is of the opinion that once it is the stand of the applicant that law permits him to file a complaint. No order is required to be passed as it is always open for the applicant to prefer a complaint if it is maintainable and permissible under law under Section 138 of the NI Act and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad