Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70407 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5554 of 2025 (Leading Application) Applicant :- Irshad Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai,Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5556 of 2025 (Connected Application) Applicant :- Shajeemuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai,Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant in the leading as well as connected application and Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State in both the applications. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the opposite party No. 2. However, the interest is being safeguarded. 3. The facts of the leading application are that on 06.02.2024 and on 07.02.2024, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant with an allegation that a cheque bearing No. 000161 was drawn by the applicant in favour of the opposite party No. 2 dated 22.08.2023 which on presentation in the bank on 04.11.2023 was dishonoured on 15.11.2023 and a statutory demand notice was issued on 25.11.2023 and the complaint was lodged on 06.02.2024, the applicant has been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2024. 4. As regards, the connected application is concerned, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on 07.02.2024 with an allegation that a cheque bearing No. 144661 was drawn by the applicant which came to be dishonored on 30.09.2023 again on the assurance of the applicant, the opposite party no. 2 again it was represented on 04.11.2023 and it was dishonored on 06.11.2023 statutory complaint was issued on 25.11.2023 and the complaint was filed on 07.02.2024 and the applicant has been summoned by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, District Bareilly on 02.09.2024. 5. Questioning the summoning orders, both the applications have been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning orders cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the court below while summoning the applicant in both the applications has overlooked the crucial aspect that in the leading application, the statutory demand notice was issued on 25.11.2023, however, the complaint was lodged on 07.02.2024, whereas in the connected application, statutory demand notice was issued on 25.11.2023 and the complaint was lodged on 07.02.2024. 7. Submission is that in view of the provisions contained under Section 138 of the N.I. Act read with Section 142 of N.I. Act, the complaint ought to have been filed within the 30 days post lapsing of 15 days being the period for making of the payment, pursuant to the statutory demand notice, he submits that thus maximum 45 days were there with the complainant to lodge complaint, post issuance of the statutory demand notice dated 25.11.2023. He submits that there is no explanation of delay either in the complaint nor it has been taken into consideration in the summoning order. 8. Contention is that once the complaint was filed beyond the statutory period then as per the provisions contained under Section 142B proviso then at least some reasons ought to have been indicated in the complaint for lodging the complaint after lapsing of the period as prescribed therein but in absence of any explanation either tenable or untenable bona fide or other than bona fide the court below without condoning the delay, the applicant could not be summoned, the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders. 9. Learned AGA submits that it appears from the complaint as well as the summoning order that none of the paragraphs have been dedicated for seeking explanation of condonation of delay and further there is nothing less to say a word in the summoning order about the same. He submits that the orders be set aside and the matter be reverted back to fast fresh orderthe summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 11. Looking into the facts and the circumstances of the leading and the connected applications, it is apparent that a statutory demand notice stood issued on 25.11.2023, however, the complaint has been filed on 07.02.2023, the statutory period for making the payment, post issuance of the notice is 15 days and the complaint has to be filed within further 30 days, here the Court finds that the complaint has been filed beyond the prescribed period. Further the Court finds that there is no explanation of condonation of delay, less to say about the application and the summoning order does not recite the same. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2024 (Kadir Khan v. Irshad Ali) as well as the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 32 of 2024 (Kadir Khan v. Shajeemuddin) is set aside. 13. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 14. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 09.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition. 15. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case. 16. Accordingly, the both the applications stand disposed of. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad