HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6550 of 2017 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3947 of 2016, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short “the Act, 1881”), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki and the summoning order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Barabanki. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that from perusal of the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it does not appear that any legal notice was sent to the applicant as there is no averment either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but the trial court while passing the summoning order, has failed to consider the fact that any legal notice was given to the applicant prior to filing of the complaint. He further submits that complainant is a property dealer and he has filed the complaint without any basis by saying that for purchase of some portion of plot, Rs.10,00,000/- was advanced. Counsel for the applicant further submits that legal notice was not sent to the applicant in consonance with Section 138 (b) and (c) of the Act, 1881, therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed being not maintainable. In Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : R.N. Shukla, Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Sushil Prakash Pandey Vinod Kumar Mishra @ Virendra Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgements:- 1. Gimpex Private Limited Vs. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 705; and 2. Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa, (2024) 8 SCC 573. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has pointed out that after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the registered legal notice dated 01.12.2016, the complaint has been entertained. He has further submitted that the trial court while issuing the summons, has seen the entire material on record along with the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which indicates that the registered legal notice was sent by opposite party no.2 on 01.12.2016 to the applicant, therefore, it is wrong to say that while issuing summon to the applicant, the trial court has not applied its mind. 5. After going through the record, I find that the trial court while issuing summons has taken note of the fact that the registered legal notice dated 01.12.2016 was sent by opposite party no.2 to the applicant and thereafter the complaint was filed by him on 19.12.2016, which is in consonance with Sections 138 (b) and (c) of the Act, 1881. It is evident that the registered legal notice dated 01.12.2016 was on record and once the evidence is available before the trial court and the summon has been issued by the court, it cannot be said that the complaint would be vitiated for the reason that the fact regarding sending of the legal notice to the applicant has not been mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is maintainable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court while exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Application being devoid of merit, is rejected. Interim order, if any, is vacated. November 20, 2025 Rao/- A482 No. 6550 of 2017 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench