Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49537 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11161 of 2025 Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Tripathi,Shiv Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. 2. On the oral request of learned counsel for the applicant, he is permitted to delete O.P. No.2 and re-number O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 as O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 during the course of the day. 3. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 17.02.2025 in Criminal Revision No.36 of 2023 (Raja Ram & others Vs. Uttar Pradesh & another) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.21, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by Addl. C.J.M. may be continued to summon the opposite parties under Section 138 of N.I. Act, arising out of Complaint No.3469 of 2018 (Ved Prakash Pandey Vs. Raja Ram Tiwari & others). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that three cheques stood drawn by O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 bearing number '192964" dated 31.05.2018 of Rs.49,000/- dated, cheque no. "202217" dated 31.05.2018 of Rs.49,000/- and cheque no. "123729" dated 25.07.2018 of Rs.1,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the cheques were presented in the bank, which stood dishonoured. Thereafter the applicants issued a legal notice upon O.P. No.2 and 3 and after completion of the statutory period, the complaint stood lodged. Summoning order was issued on 03.10.2019. Questioning the said summoning order, a revision came to be preferred being Revision No. 36 of 2023, by Raja Ram Tiwari (since deceased) and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, which came to be allowed, remitting the matter back to the court below for passing fresh orders with respect to summoning on 17.02.2025. Questioning the said order, the applicant has filed the present application. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that there had been service of notice and the revisional court committed an error in remanding the matter back. 5. Learned A.G.A. has supported the revisional order. 6. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises for consideration is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceeding. Apparently, the ground, which weighed the revisional court was with respect to overlooking of the crucial fact regarding the service of the legal demand notice upon the accused. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that there is no indications so made and there is nothing to suggest that there has been any sufficiency of service of the notice upon the accused. The said aspect of the matter of revision came to be noticed and the matter has been remitted back. 7. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there happens to be any document on record, which was filed before the court below regarding the service of notice, the answer is in negative. Since the revisional order in question is the order of remand and the matter has been remitted back, thus in these circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the present case. 8. The application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad