Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46627 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10579 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Saran (AoR No.A/S 1277/2012) holding brief of Sri Dheeraj Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, interest of the O.P. No.2 is safeguarded. 3. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 04.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Chitrakoot as well as further proceeding in Complaint Case 5224 of 2023 (Besaniya Vs. Jitendra Singh), under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Karvi, District- Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Chitrakoot. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that perusal of the complaint dated 09.10.23 would make it more than evident that the applicant had drawn a cheque dated 20.05.2023 bearing number '441907', which was presented in the Bank on 15.06.2023, which stood dishonoured, communication whereof was made to the O.P. No.2 on 16.06.2023 and thereafter on the assurance of the applicant, again the cheque was presented on 11.07.2023, which was dishonoured on 12.07.2023, a legal notice dated 08.08.2023 was issued on 14.08.2023, which as per the summoning order dated 04.06.2024 was served upon the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, the complaint stood lodged beyond the prescribed period, i.e. on 09.10.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited attention of the Court towards page 26 of the paper-book so as to contend that on 12.10.2023, an application for condoning the delay also stood preferred by O.P. No.2, however, while issuing the summoning order dated 04.06.2024, summoning the applicant, a contradictory finding has been recorded that the legal notice as well as the complaint had been filed within the prescribed period as stipulated in the statute. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once it was the own case of the O.P. No.2 that there was delay in lodging the complaint and a justification for the same was sought to be recited in the said application, then the court below had erred in law in recording a contradictory finding that the complaint was filed within the time period. 5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that a close scrutiny of the complaint as well as the summoning order itself shows that there was inconsistency as noticed above. He submits that order be set aside and matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order. 6. Having heard the arguments so sought to be made across the Bar, the only question which arises for consideration as to whether this Court would interfere at this stage in view of the said inconsistency. Apparently, the dates stand corroborated in the complaint, according to which the legal notice stood issued on 08.08.2023 which was received on 14.08.2023 and the complaint stood preferred on 09.10.2023. Once there happens to be an application for condonation of delay in terms of Section 142, then in the circumstances, the recording of the finding that the complaint had been filed within time, does not merit any acceptance. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The summoning order dated 04.06.2024 is set aside. 8. The matter is remitted back to the court of A.C.J.M./ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) FTC, Chitrakoot to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad