HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38971 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 entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 02.07.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) New Court No.10/Judicial Magistrate Jaunpur in Complaint Case No.168 of 2024 (Om Prakash Mishra Vs. Rahul Srivastava) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) New Court No.10/ Judicial Magistrate Jaunpur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that demand notice has been served on incorrect address. The address in demand notice is of Sultanpur whereas applicant is residing at Amethi. Learned counsel for applicant submits that once the notice has not been served on applicant, proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not tenable. In this respect, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon a judgment of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in CRMC NO.381 of 2018 (Engineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd.) decided on 8.7.2022. 4. It is to be seen that in the present case, plea raised by applicant is to the effect that demand notice has been served on incorrect address at Sultanpur although applicant is a resident of Amethi. 5. Perusal of present application under Section 528 BNSS would go to show that in the array of parties, the address of Sultanpur has been given as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Srivastava .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) address of applicant-Rahul Srivastava. The aforesaid address also finds place in the demand notice. Once the applicant itself admits in the application under Section 528 BNSS as the address of Sultanpur then such plea with regard to residence of applicant are disputed question of fact, which are required to be raised at the stage of trial. 6. The plea raised by the applicant 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 raised by the Applicant 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 above, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. October 14, 2025 D. Tamang NA528 No. 38971 of 2025 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad