HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4218 of 2024 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anshuman Verma, learned AGA for the State and Shri Mohammad Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of impugned cognizance order dated 18.01.2023 as well as entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 5576 of 2021, in Criminal Case No. 5576 of 2021, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station - Hasanganj, District - Lucknow pending before the Court of Additional Court Room No. 06, Lucknow (in short "trial Court"). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 filed the case against the applicant stating therein that the brother of opposite party no.2 had done AC repairing work in the office of the applicant. The complainant transferred Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant for fulfilling his requirements. The applicant issued three cheques to the complainant which got dishonoured. 4. He further submits that after dishonoring of the cheques, time period of sending notice to the drawer of the cheque is maximum thirty days whereas in the present case, legal notice has been sent by the holder of the cheque after approximately ninety days from the date of dishonour of the cheques. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shakti Kumar Sharma, Jatin Raheja, Shobhit Harsh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Ahmad Vaibhav Pratap Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He has invited attention of the Court towards paragraph 5 of of the legal notice dated 24.06.2020 that cheque no.477 dated 07.02.2020 for Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque no.478 dated 19.02.2020 for Rs.50,000/- and cheque no.479 dated 03.02.2020 for Rs.50,000/- all drawn in favour of ACCESS ENVIRO TECH ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.. It is evident in paragraph 7 of the legal notice that the cheque has been dishonoured by the Bank with reason "Fund Insufficient" which was intimated to client by their bank through cheque return memo dated 10.02.2020, 02.03.2020, 06.03.2020 for cheque nos. 477, 478 and 479. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first notice was issued on 24.06.2020 and second notice was issued on 20.07.2020. Thus, the notices were time barred and impugned cognizance order dated 18.01.2023 is liable to be set aside and proceedings arising out of Case No. 5576 of 2021, in Criminal Case No. 5576 of 2021, are liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Shri Mohammad Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that in March, 2020, Hon'ble Supreme Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic. (Refer: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation). Vide order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 Of 2022 In Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, it has been clarified that "the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." A482 No. 4218 of 2024 2 8. He lastly submits that after going through the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation (Supra), it is clear that the notice was issued within time and the complaint should have been treated filed within time. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed and the impugned summoning order is just and proper and no interference is required. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. After going through the records as well the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation (Supra), it is clear that the period of COVID-19 has been excluded for limitation period and legal notice issued by the complainant to the applicant was within time and complaint was also within time, therefore, the application filed by the complainant is to be treated within time and limitation of law will not be applied in the present case, therefore, the present application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. Interim order stands vacated. November 11, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 4218 of 2024 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench