Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57214 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12859 of 2025 Applicant :- Siddhartha Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the Non bailable Warrant and proceeding U/S 82,83 Cr.P.C. order dated.30/6/2024 along with the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 2980 of 2017, (Ravindra Kumar Vs Sidhartha Sharma) U/S 138 NI Act Police Station-Ganga Nagar, District- Meerut, pending before the Learned Court of ACJM, Court No. 09, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that O.P. No.2 had lodged a complaint on 07.11.2017 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, regarding dishonouring of the cheque of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing number "102827". Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant post-summons had appeared and on 24.02.2023, on his request, opinion of the hand- writing expert was obtained and according to the applicant, the report is in his favour. However, as per the applicant, non-bailable warrants have been issued and thereafter proceedings under Section 82/83 of CrPC had also been conducted. He further submits that on account of certain problems which were beyond control and comprehension, the applicant could not join the proceedings. He however, submits that proceedings be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the applicant himself had appeared before the court below and on his own application, hand-writing report was called and the applicant claims that the report is in his favour, then merely because non- bailable warrants and proceedings under Sections 82/83 of CrPC have been conducted, would not be a ground germane to quash the proceedings particularly when there happens to be nothing on record to substantiate that any jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below. 5. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar, the sole question arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant and the applicant, thereafter, as per his own saying had put in appearance and on his own application, the matter was referred for expert opinion of the hand-writing expert and the applicant claims that the hand-writing expert opinion was in his favour. Once the position being so, and there is nothing on record to substantiate that there has been any jurisdictional error committed by the court below, then merely because proceedings of non-bailable warrant and Section 82/83 CrPC has been initiated cannot be a ground to quash the proceeding. 6. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is consigned to record. It is open for the applicant to appear before the court below and to apply for bail and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case such application for bail is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad