HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40790 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the cognizance and summoning order dated 23.11.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1241 of 2020 (Ram Swaroop Vs. Gayan Singh) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun, 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that as per complaint, demand notice was sent after dishonour of the cheque by the complainant and returned back. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was residing at Kanpur Nagar and notice was sent at ancestral home address, as a result of same, notice was not served. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on 17.10.2020 notice has been returned back. Notice was sent on 24.9.2020 and complaint has been filed on 20.10.2020. Notice was returned back to complaint on 17.10.2020. 4. It is to be seen that insofar as question of address of applicant is concerned, the same is a question of fact, which is required to be looked into by the trial court, as the same is in the nature of defence. 5. Insofar as argument of learned counsel for applicant that complaint being barred, it is to be seen that as per complaint, notice was sent on 24.9.2020. The same was returned back on 17.10.2020 and thereafter complaint was filed on 20.10.2020. The complaint has been filed after 15 days from the date of notice and as such, at this stage, it would not be proper for this Court to record any finding. The said issue is left open for being decided by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gyan Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) trial court at the proper stage. 6. The plea raised by the applicant(s) in the present application are in the nature of defence of applicant-accused. The defence version of events would require a mini-trial. The defense evidence and arguments are meant to be presented and proved during the trial. It is now fairly settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the this Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. The nature of plea(s) raised by the Applicant(s) are essentially questions of fact and required appreciation of facts, which this court does not consider necessary to be considered at this stage as these facts are required to be proved by the applicant-accused before the trial court prior to the same being considered. 7. In view of aforesaid, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. October 17, 2025 D. Tamang NA528 No. 40790 of 2025 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad