Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116742 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13186 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandrakant Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Applicant :- Govind Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri V.N. Mishra (AoR A/V 0086/12) holding brief of Sri G.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred by quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint case No. 301 of 2023, (Alecture Welnes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandrakant Pathak), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Varanasi together with impugned summoning order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 02.01.2023 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of the liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no. 020936 of Rs. 1,44,000/- dated 05.09.2022, which on presentation in the bank on 18.11.2022 stood dishonored on 21.11.2022 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 24.11.2022/02.12.2022 against which the applicant has submitted its reply on 20.12.2022 which was served upon the opposite party no. 2 on 23.12.2022 and on 02.01.2023 applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained as no legal debt or liability stands attracted in view of the provisions contained Section 138 of the NI Act and further the applicant was not accorded 15 days' time to make payment. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and stood dishonored then the presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, post dishonor of a cheque, a statutory notice as per the averments contained in para 14 of the complaint stood issued on 24.11.2022/02.12.2022 which as per para 15 of the complaint was replied by the applicant on 20.12.2022 which was served upon the applicant on 23.12.2022 and the complaint was lodged on 02.01.2023. 7. Interestingly, there is a recital contained that the applicant had submitted reply to the statutory demand notice then it is presumed that service of the statutory demand notice was made. Further computing the period from 24.11.2022/ 02.12.2022 and the date on which the complaint was preferred itself on 02.01.2023 itself shows that more than 15 days time was accorded to the applicant to make payment. Even otherwise presumption under Section 139 would be there. 8. Interference declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds and, in case, such grounds are taken, this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad