Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78887 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13676 of 2025 Applicant :- Arunendra Kumar Dubey Alias Arunesh Kumar Duve Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 499 of 2017 (Hari Narayan Tiwari Versus Arunendra Kumar Dubey) filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Police Station:-Sector-49 Noida. District:-Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as summoning/ cognizance order dated 05.05.2017 passed/issued by the Court of Second A.C.J.M.-Gautam Buddha Nagar along- with other consequential orders which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge. (N.I. Act), Gautam Buddha Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged on 8.2.2017 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with relation to an agreement so entered into between the parties whereby pursuant whereto a cheque of Rs.9,97,000/- was drawn by the applicant bearing no.000978 dated 30.9.2016 when presented in the bank was dishonoured thereafter again the cheque on the assurance of the applicant was presented by the opposite party no.2 which was dishonoured on 2.12.2016, 14.12.2016, 23.12.2016 followed by a statutory complaint dated 27.12.2016 and the statutory notice and thereafter a complaint on 8.2.2017. He has further submitted that the applicant has been summoned on 5.5.2017 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly the original cheque which was dishonoured was not annexed with the complaint and it was not a part of the record before the court below and secondly, while inviting the attention of the Court towards page 66 it is contended that the notice was issued on an incorrect address as the address on which statutory notice was issued, the applicant was not residing at that point of time. He further seeks to invite attention towards cross- examination at page 66 and 67 of the paper book. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the application. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, the cheque stood drawn for the amount of Rs.9,97,000/- which was presented in the bank for encashment on several occasions and lastly on 23.12.2016 and when it was dishonoured thereafter on 27.12.2016 a statutory notice was issued followed by complaint dated 8.12.2017. The issue as to whether the subject cheque which was dishonoured on several occasions was filed along with the complaint and it was available on record before the court below suffice is to say that page 56B of the paper book the summoning order dated 5.5.2017 is self recites that the dishonoured cheque was taken into consideration by the court below while summoning the applicant. Whether the cheque was the same or not is a matter of trial. Apart from the same so far as the allegations sought to be levelled that the notice was sent in the incorrect address and thus there has been no compliance under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act is concerned which is relevant to mention at this stage, it is a matter of trial moreover already the applicant has participated and joined the proceedings and cross-examination is already going on as apparent from page 67 of the paper book dated 24.6.2024, with respect to other arguments sought to be raised at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 was working for the applicant and he is misused the cheque is concerned and further the accounts do not portray the story sought to be projected by the opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court at this stage is not required to delve into the said issue as these are the matter of defences occasion whereof would arise only in the trial. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out. The application stands rejected. 8. Needless to point that the order passed today is in relation to the challenge raised to the summoning order only and it will not be construed to be an expression on the merit in the trial. Order Date :- 14.5.2025/piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad