Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81403 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15304 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Surbhi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, 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 summoning order dated 24.5.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3071 of 2024, (Manoj Kumar Vs. Smt. Surbhi & others), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged on 1.6.2023 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants with respect of transfer of a flat a cheque bearing no.000872 of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 28.3.2023 was drawn which was presented in the bank and dishonoured on 29.3.2023 followed by a statutory notice dated 15.4.2023 which is stated to have been served upon the applicants on 18.4.2023 and in failing to make the payment, complaint was lodged on 1.6.2023 which led to passing of the order dated 24.5.2024 summoning the applicants. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, as per the own case of the complainant as en-capsuled in para 10, the demand notice dated 15.4.2023 is stated to have been served upon the applicants on 18.4.2023 but the complainant was lodged on 1.6.2023 beyond the permissible period. Secondly, there is no disclosure in the complaint with respect to the date on which the alleged oral and written agreement was executed with respect to transfer of the said flat. Further submission is that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability against the applicants. 5. Learned AGA has submitted that once a cheque stood drawn by the applicants then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be in favour of the holder. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Apparently, the complaint alleges dishonouring of the cheque, followed by statutory demand notice dated 15.4.2023 served on 18.4.2023. As regards the submission that the complaint is delayed and time barred is concerned, the same is not liable to be accepted for the simple reason that the statutory demand notice as per the complaint was served upon the applicants on 18.4.2023, thus, 15 days time is to be accorded for making a payment and the cause of action would arise within a period of 30 days when the 15 days lapsed. Hence the Court finds that the complaint has been lodged within time. With respect to the submission that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability in view of the fact that the complaint does not recite the mode of payment of amount is concerned, the same is matter of trial and the stage whereof would arise when a decision is to be taken as to whether the accused is to be convicted or acquitted. What would be relevant is the presumption under Section 139 of the Act in favour of the holder. 7. At this stage learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 happens to be the wife of the applicant no.2 thus, relief be accorded to the applicant no.1. The said contention cannot be accepted for simple reason that the cheque, which is stated to have been dishonoured, has been signed by both the applicants who are signatories to the same. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands rejected. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for bail. 10. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad