Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46348 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10688 of 2025 Applicant :- Humdan Traders And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 307 of 2024, (Computer Case No.12070 of 2024), (Jai Shiv Traders Vs. Humdan Traders and another), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hathras. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint stood lodged on 4.3.2024, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicants with an allegation that a cheque stood issued by the applicants on 15.12.2023 for an amount of Rs.1,46,000/-, however, when the same was presented in the bank on 16.12.2023 then the same was returned on 19.12.2023 to refer the drawee bank. He further submits that again the said cheque was presented on 30.1.2024 and the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund on 31.1.2024 and the legal notice was issued on 7.2.2024 which is stated to have been served on 9.2.2024 as the complaint has been preferred on 4.3.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that first of all the narration of the allegation contained in the complaint, the payments are to be made through the mode of R.T.G.S. and not through cheque and further the complaint itself is beyond time as the cause of action stood arose from the golden date i.e. 19.12.2023 when the bank had returned cheque to be referred to the drawer and re-presentation would not give a fresh cause of action to extend the limitation and further while inviting attention towards the cheque it would be sought to be argued that there has been mismatching in the handwriting which itself shows that the cheque has been misused in this regard. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that none of the arguments so sought to be raised by the applicants have any tenability in the eyes of law, according to him the complaint has been filed within limitation. 6. Having heard the submissions made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, cheques to be issued as per the complaint by the applicant on 15.12.2023 which was returned by the bank on 19.12.2023 to be referred to drawee bank and again presented on 30.1.2024 and the same was communicated by the bank to the opposite party no.2 on 31.1.2024 regarding insufficient fund and as per the recital contained in para-7 a notice came to be issued on 7.2.2024 which was served upon the opposite party no.2 on 9.2.2024 and on 4.3.2024 the complaint was lodged. Interestingly, the cause of action for serving the legal notice arose on 31.1.2024 returned with the memo that it could not be cleared on account of insufficiency of the fund. Thereafter, the legal notice stood issued within a period of 30 days on 7.2.2024 and on 9.2.2024 as per the recital contained in para 7 the legal notice was served upon the opposite party no.2 and the complaint stood preferred within the statutory period. Thus there has been no infraction of the provisions contained Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the payment was to be made through R.T.G.S.is concerned the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stage when the trial has not commenced and so far as that the cheque was not issued in the writing of the applicants is concerned, the same cannot be gone into at this stage. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad