Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43096 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5305 of 2025 Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shanker Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the summoning order dated 16.01.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) court no.1, Etawah along with entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 65 of 2012 (Dileep Kumar Sharma vs. Pankaj Dwivedi) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.s. Kotwali, District Etawah pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.1 Etawah. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 13.07.2012 regarding to the dishonouring of a cheque amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- dated 20.03.2012 on 02.05.2012. Thought the said complaint was beyond the prescribed time but an application U/s 5 of Limitation Act was also preferred and the court below summoned the applicant by virtue of the order dated 16.01.2023. The applicant further contended that he had no knowledge of the said order, however, he post attainment of the knowledge got enlarged on bail on 05.01.2023. Thereafter, he preferred an objection on 02.03.2024 objecting the order condoning the delay in filing the complaint by the applicant. The said application came to be rejected on 03.10.2024 by the court of ACJM, court no.01, Etawah. The submission is that the objection preferred by the application has not been considered in corrective perspective as the ground taken by the opposite party no.2 for condoning the delay that he was ill and ailing and also admitted to the hospital cannot be accepted particularly when the medical certificate is a forged one. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the order dated 03.10.2024 rejecting the objection of the applicant is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the order dated 03.10.2024 cannot be faulted in any manner whatsoever as the same has considered each and every aspect matter as also the objection of the applicant and further reply of opposite party no.2. 5. Having heard the submissions made across the bar, apparently, the proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act was beyond the permissible period however, on an application for condonation of delay, the court condoned the delay and issued the summoning order. The summoning was passed on 16.01.2013 however, the applicant obtained bail on 05.01.2023, thereafter, an objection on 02.03.2024 after a period of more than one year. Further, it is apparent that in the proceeding itself dated 15.03.2024 was the date fixed for undertaking proceedings under section 313 Cr.P.C. The court further finds that there has been an dilatory tactics so sought to be adopted by the applicant. Moreover, once the trial itself has commenced and it is at the stage of section 313 Cr.P.C. thus it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere at this juncture in view of the intervening facts. Accordingly, the interference is declined. The present application is rejected and consigned to record. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 /C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad