Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74223 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6228 of 2025 Applicant :- Singh Fertilizers Situated And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey,Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Faridpur, Bareilly passed in Complaint Case No.67 of 2023, Under Section 138 of N.I. Act Police Station Fatehganj Purvi, District Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 27.05.2020 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to purchase of certain items from O.P. No.2, applicant had drawn a cheque dated 10.02.2020 bearing number "000050" of Rs.4,41,000/-, which on presentation in the Bank was dishonoured on 18.02.2020 on account of insufficient fund, a statutory demand notice is stated to have been issued on 28.02.2020 and complaint was filed on 27.05.2020. On 28.02.2023, the applicant has been summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint so preferred by the O.P. No.2 is time barred, as the same was filed beyond the permissible limit, as the statutory demand notice was dated 28.02.2020, but the complaint stood preferred on 27.05.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no explanation offered and without condoning the delay the complaint has been entertained and held to be within time. Further submission is that the said cheque stood misplaced and a written report was made to the police on 29.08.2018, thus enforceable debt or liability attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act would not attract. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that once a cheque has been drawn, then the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would be there and so far as the contention so raised regarding delay is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that at that point of time, the nation was suffering with the Pandemic relating to COVID-19 (corona virus) and regarding the theory so sought to be propounded that the cheque stood lost is a question of trial. 6. I have heard the submissions so raised across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, a cheque was drawn by the applicant, which stood dishonoured. A statutory notice was issued on 28.02.2020. Though the complaint had been preferred on 27.05.2020, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the proceedings in COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, IN RE, wherein series of orders were passed on 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and ultimately on 10.01.2022, since the courts were closed and the mobility was paralyzed so by virtue of the order of the Court, the limitation period stood extended. As regards the submission that the cheque stood lost is a matter of defence which can very well be a ground post-conduction of trial, where the decision is to be taken as to whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. Moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder of the cheque. 8. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere in the present proceeding. 9. The application is rejected. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad