Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76673 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15221 of 2025 Applicant :- Bharat Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Pal,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Kripa Shankar, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed U/s 528 of BNSS for quashing the complaint dated 31.10.2013 and summoning order dated 15.10.2014 and proceedings initiated in complaint case no. 3697 of 2013 (Padam Products Pvt. Ltd vs. Bharat Sahu) U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Collector Ganj, Kanpur Nagar pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, court no.8, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged on 31.10.2013 with an allegation that 16 drums of refine rice brand oil was supplied by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant and a total amount of Rs. 1,74,825/- including VAT and SAT was due. As per the complaint, the applicant had drawn a cheque dated 2.8.2013 bearing no. 679159 of Rs. 1,74,825/- which on presentation to the bank was dishonoured on 06.08.2013, a statutory demand notice was issued on 8.10.2013 which as per the averment contained in para-12 was replied by the applicant on 26.10.2013 and thereafter, the complaint has been filed. 4. The court below on 15.10.2014 summoned the applicant under section 138 of N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in paragraph 12 of the complaint, though it has been alleged that a statutory demand notice was issued by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant on 8.10.2013 but there is no date of service of the statutory notice, thus the complaint is bound to fail as the statutory requirement as per section 138 of N.I. Act read with section 142 has not been complied with. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Travels and Tours vs. State of Bihar, 2000 8 JT 111 SC to buttress his submission. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the application. 6. I have considered the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently, with respect to the dishonouring of a cheque, a statutory notice is stated to have been issued on 08.10.2013. Though there is no date of service but paragraph-12 of the complaint itself shows that applicant has replied to the same on 26.10.2013. Moreover, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Travels and Tours (Supra) came for consideration and the same was distinguished in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (12) SCC 685 Once a statutory notice has bee issued and the applicant has tendered his reply, then the lame excuse that it was not served would not suffice as even otherwise the issue as to whether, it has been served not not is a matter of trial. However, the said condition will not apply particularly when there has been a reply submitted by the applicant to the statutory notice. As far as the argument sought to be raised that the cheque was with respect to different transaction is concerned no consideration is needed at this stage. Particularly when presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act is in favour of the holder. Accordingly, no interference is required and the present application is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad