Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74274 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6341 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Rai,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Anand Agarwal,Shreya Gupta Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer as well as Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. 3. With the consent of the parties, application is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 06.10.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Bareilly in complaint Case No. 1436/2023, under section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly and the entire criminal proceeding as well as complaint therein, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No.1, Bareilly. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 on 15.02.2023 against the applicant with relation to dishonouring of a cheque dated 28.12.2022 of an amount of Rs.10,21,000/- on 29.12.2022. However, as per the recital contained in para-5 of the complaint, the statutory demand notice is stated to have issued on 01.02.2023, however, the complaint was preferred on 15.02.2023. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the statutory requirement of payment of the amount within a period of 15 days itself had not lapsed, particularly, when complaint stood preferred on 15.02.2023, when the statutory demand notice dated 01.02.2023. 6. Ms. Shreya Gupta while countering the submission so made by the counsel for the applicant has submitted that it was due to inadvertent typographical error that the notice dated 19.01.2023 could not be mentioned in the paragraph-5 of the application, as the said statutory notice was already on record along with the complaint. She submits that since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered in the correct perspective, so the summoning order 06.10.2023 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order. 7. Learned State Law Officer has no objection to the same. 8. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the crucial question, which arises for consideration is the fact as to whether the notice dated 19.01.2023 was available on record or not. and what would be the impact of non-mentioning of the same in the complaint. These are the factual issues which needs to be considered at the first instance by the court below before taking a decision as to whether the prima facie case is for summoning or not. 9. Looking into the over all facts situation and the arguments so advanced across the Bar and the statement made by counsel for the O.P. No.2, the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law in view of the arguments noticed hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. 11. Documents filed today are taken on record and are marked as Appendix- 'A'. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad