HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10390 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the present application, the applicant has challenged the summoning order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Complaint Case no.716 of 2018, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the notice sent to the applicant is defective, hence no proceedings could be initiated against him. The entire proceedings of Complaint Case no.716 of 2018 has also been challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the legal notice as well as in the complaint, it is mentioned that the cheque no.000046 of Rs.18,00,000/- dated "28.06.2018" was handed over whereas the alleged cheque has been issued on "26.06.2018", therefore, the wrong facts is mentioned in the case and the case of the applicant is covered with the judgment of Kaveri Plastics Vs. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2019. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed specific reliance on para 8.8 of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Kaveri Plastics (Supra). There is no other ground urged by learned counsel for the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramji Umarvaishy .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On the other hand, Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that summons have been issued vide order dated 11.04.2019 but the revision has been filed after about five years which shows that the applicant was avoiding the proceedings before the trial Court. 6. He has further submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned summoning order because it has been issued after considering the statement under Section 200 CrPC and after going through records. 7. He has further submitted that legal notice was given and thereafter the complaint was filed within time. The cheque is dated "26.06.2018" and in para 3 of the notice, the opposite party no.2 has stated that cheque no.00046 was handed over on "28.06.2018" but the cheque is of date "26.06.2018". Therefore, misconceived argument has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. After going through the record, I find that the legal notice was given to the applicant through registered post on 25.07.2018 and thereafter, the complaint was filed on 04.09.2018, the cheque is mentioned i.e. "26.06.2018" and the averment made in para 3 of the complaint only indicates the fact that cheque was handed over on "28.06.2018" but the date in which cheque was issued is "26.06.2018", therefore, the judgement passed in Kaveri Plastics (Supra) placed by learned counsel for the applicant will not be applicable in the present case. 9. Application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. December 9, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 10390 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench