Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44562 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10458 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Faliha Begum Khan Alias Smt. Faliha Alias Arshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. 2. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Complaint Case No.29897 of 2023 (Abhishek Sharma Vs. Smt. Faliha) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in Court of learned Additional Court 138 N.I. Act, Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a perusal of the complaint lodged under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 24.07.2023 would make it more than evident that the allegation is with regard to the drawing of a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.05.2023 and dishonouring of the same on 07.06.2023, legal notice whereof issued on 30.06.2023, but there is no recital about the fact as to when the said notice stood served upon the applicant. He further argues that the allegations in the said complaint is regarding extending of assurance for providing an employment and taking a cheque. However, the O.P. No.2, who happens to be an advocate, whose father deals with financial activities. He also submits that the summoning order had been issued on 01.09.2023 by Presiding Officer, Additional Court 138 of N.I. Act/ M.V. Act, Moradabad and thus he does not possess jurisdiction under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. He seeks to rely upon an interim order passed in Application u/s 482 No.11444 of 2020, Vipin Chandra vs. State of U.P. so as to contend that under Section 142 (c),of the N.I. Act, no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and here it happens to be a special Court and not a Magistrate, thus, he has no jurisdiction and even otherwise,to issue summons order and try the said offence. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the similar fashion, the opposite party no.2 has been lodging multiple criminal proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that all the three objections so sought to be raised cannot be accepted particularly in view of the fact that firstly in the complaint itself, there happens to be a recital in para-14 that the notice dated 30.06.2023 stood served upon opposite party and a status report was also annexed, secondly, here in the present case, the summoning order has been issued by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, 138 N.I. Act, thus by virtue of the jurisdictional allotment he has the jurisdiction to try the said offences and thirdly, so far as the issue with regard to the fact whether the cheque was issued in lieu of assurance to provide the employment or financing is a matter which is to be taken up at the stage of trial. 5. Having heard the arguments so sought to be advanced across the Bar, the only question which falls for determination at this stage is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, so far as the ground relatable to the jurisdictional aspect is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition of law that under Section 142(c) of N.I. Act, no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, however, in the present case, as per the summoning order, the dedicated court, being the Additional Court 138 N.I. Act, which was also entrusted with the work of M.V. Act had issued summons order. Thus in absence of pointing out of any notification in this regard that the said Presiding Officer was only possessed with the jurisdiction to decide proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act and not under M.V. Act, it would not be appropriate for the Court to go into the said aspect of the matter. Regarding the service of notice, para-14 of the complaint itself makes it clear that there stood appended a status report that the service was found to be sufficient and further so far as the issue relatable to the fact as to whether the amount in question, which was being sought to be tendered through cheque was for finance purpose and for making assurance for providing employment is concerned, the same is an issue, which cannot be gone into at this stage when the trial has not commenced, and the same can be at best a defence. 6. Accordingly, no case is made out. The application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad