Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42366 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9302 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandan Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Sadab Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, the learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 20908 of 2018, In Re Swarn Trading Corporation Versus Motley Refinery, Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Gwaltoli, District-Kanpur Nagar. 3. Earlier the applicant had approached this Court while filing Application U/s 482 No. 34932 of 2023, in which on 22.11.2023, the following orders were passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 03.01.2019 and passed in Complaint Case No.20908 of 2018 (Swarn Trading vs. Morale Refinery), under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Gawaltoli, District- Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. At the outset learned counsel for the applicants gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicants and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicants to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the applicants further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously. Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. submits that in case the applicants is not pressing the relief as sought for by him on merits and wants to surrender before the concerned court below, he has no objection if the Court grants protection to him for a short period. In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicants in the instant application is refused. However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within two weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, he shall not be arrested in the above case. With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant while inviting attention towards the order dated 06.02.2025 in the order-sheet of the case in question at page-53 of the paper-book submits that on 18.02.2025 was the date fixed for undertaking the proceeding under Section 313 of CrPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the complaint itself, once the cheque issued / drawn by the company being Motley Refinery Limited and in the complaint, besides the applicant herein, who is one of the Directors, the said company was impleaded as a party, however, summons were only issued on 03.01.2019 against the Directors and not the Company, thus in view of the judgment in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. M/s God Father Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 and N. Harihara Krishnan Versus J. Thomas, AIR 2017 SC 4125, the proceedings are not maintainable. He thus submits that though in the trial itself, the proceedings are right now under Section 313 CrPC, as apparent from the order dated 06.02.2025 in the order-sheet, thus the proceedings be set aside. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that once the applicant has already questioned the summoning order dated 03.01.2019 and the said application stood disposed of directing the applicant to surrender before the court below and to obtain bail, then the present application questioning the summoning order in the garb of entire proceeding is not maintainable. 6. I have heard the arguments so advanced across the Bar. The sole question, which arises for consideration is the extent of jurisdictional intervention at this stage particularly when in the first spell of litigation, summoning order was not interfered with. Apparently, the order passed in Application u/s 482 No.34932 of 2023, itself depicts that the summoning order dated 03.01.2019 was subject matter of challenge. However, the Court did not interfere, but the applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail. Notably, the order sheet depicts that on 06.02.2025, 18.02.2025 was the date fixed for undertaking the proceeding under Section 313 CrPC and further the order-sheet dated 18.02.2025/28.02.2025 shows that the applicant was not present. Interestingly, the present application has been preferred on 09.03.2025. In the opinion of the Court, once the proceedings have reached the stage of deposition under Section 313 CrPC, and thus filing of the present application at this stage post the proceedings which were directed to be undertaken on 18.02.2025, it would not be appropriate for the Court to interfere at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad