HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10500 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The applicant has filed the present application under section 482, Cr.P.C. mainly with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.-18667/2023. U/S 138 of The Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Raibareli, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, District-Raibareli along with impugned summoning order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, District-Raibareli and impugned Revisional Order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge 7th/Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), District-Raibareli, in Criminal Revision No. 174/2024, Smt. Sandhya Gupta vs State of U.P. and another. 4. It is case of the applicant that she is a widow lady. Her cheque No. 280312 was lost, for which she had lodged F.I.R. It has been further submitted that she has not committed any offence and further the legal notice which is said to have been sent by the opposite party No. 2, is not served by her. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the legal notice sent by opposite party No. 2 is received by one Kajal, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gauri Shankar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Sandhya Gupta .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) therefore, there is violation of Section 138(B) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel and anr., Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 2009, dated 13.04.2009 and Judgment of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh v. Sh Ruchi Kitchenette, dated 25.09.2024. The learned counsel has submitted that the summoning order has been passed by the court below without applying its mind and without considering the fact that legal notice is not serve upon the applicant. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the order passed by the Court below was challenged before the revisional court, however, the revisional court passed order in cursory manner. The learned counsel for the applicant has pleaded that the courts below have committed grave error in not appreciating the facts and legal proposition of the case. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., appearing for the State, has submitted that statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter evidences under Section 202, Cr.P.C. were produced before the court and the same were considered. Cheque No. 280312 dated 05.06.2023 pertaining to Rs. 12 lacs was dishonoured on the ground that money was not sufficient. The opposite party No. 2 sent legal notice on 26.08.2023 through registered letter on 26.08.2023 itself and as per delivery status the notice was served on 28.08.2023. 7. After going through record, I find that the complaint was filed within time and the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. were considered by the court below and thereafter summon has been issued. Whether cheque was lost or not, is the question that will be decided by the court below. Certainly this court cannot give any finding on the same. Similarly, the argument that the notice was not received by the applicant, is also a question of fact that will be decided by the court below after the evidences are adduced on record. This court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot weigh the evidences. Trial is required for that. The judgments in the case of M.D. Thomas (supra) and Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) placed by the counsel A482 No. 10500 of 2025 2 for the applicant are not applicable in the present case, as after careful perusal of the same it is evident that these are the cases where the trial had been concluded, but in the present case it is a summoning order, which is under challenge by the applicant, and trial has not been conducted. The court cannot give any finding regarding the cheque being lost, or regarding the fact whether legal notice was served on the applicant. The application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. December 15, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 10500 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench