Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90620 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16787 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhageerath Rajput Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Singh. Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to O.P. No. 2. 3. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.635 of 2023 (Balakram Vs. Bhageerath) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj as well as summoning order dated 13.11.2024 passed by court below, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that a cheque bearing no.111621 dated 13.9.2023 for an amount of Rs.3 lakh was drawn by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no.2 which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured on 18.9.2023, 26.9.2023 and 28.9.2023 and thereafter the complaint was lodged on 26.10.2023. Thereafter, on 13.11.2024 the applicant has been summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Questioning the summoning order the applicant has preferred the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that though in the complaint it has been alleged that the cheques stood dishonoured on three occasions but there is no recital about the issuance of the statutory notice. 7. Submission is that even in the summoning order dated 13.11.2024 the court below while summoning the applicant has not taken note of the fact that there happens to be no recital about the issuance of the statutory notice less to say about the service, however, in the summoning order this much has been said that the documents including the notice have filed. Further submission is that the summoning order is cryptic. 8. Prayer is for setting aside the summoning order. 9. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that one of the mandatory requirement is issuance of a statutory notice and post service of the same 15 days time is to be accorded for the purpose of making of the payment and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can only be filed within a period of 30 days when the cause of action arose. He thus submits that the consideration in the aforesaid prospective is lacking. He also submits that the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 10. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Before adverting to the tenability of the arguments so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, it would be apposite to quote:- न्ययाययालय अपर ससिवविल जज (सिस.वड.) / अपर ममुख्य न्ययावयक मसजस्टटट्रेट, कनन्नौज। पररवियाद सिसंख्यया-635/2023 बयालकरयाम बनयाम भयागसरथ। धयारया-138 एन०आई० एक्ट धयानया-वतिवियार्वा सजलया-कनन्नौज वदनयासंक-13.11.2024 पतयाविलस आदट्रेशयाथर्वा पट्रेश हहई। तिलबस कट्रे वबन्दमु पर पपूविर्वा मम सिमुनया जया चमुकया हहै। यह पररवियाद, पररवियादस दयारया वविपकस भयागसरथ कट्रे वविरूद्ध वविवभन अवभकथननों कट्रे सियाथ इसि आशय कया प्रस्तिमुति हहै वक वविपकस कको तिलब कर सिजया दस जयाए। पररवियादस दयारया पररवियादपत कट्रे सियाथ शपथ पत एविसं चट्रेक ककी मपूल प्रवति चट्रेक सिसंख्यया -111621 वि चट्रेक मम असंवकति धनरयावश अदया न करनट्रे कट्रे कयारण -सिसंबसंधस प्रलट्रेख ककी मपूल प्रवति , वविपकस कको भट्रेजस गयस नकोवटसि ककी प्रवति, रसजस्टटस ककी मपूल प्रवति आवद प्रलट्रेख दयासखल वकयया गयया हहै। सिमस्ति प्रपतनों कट्रे अविलकोकन सिट्रे जयाति हकोतिया हहै वक वविपकस भयागसरथ दयारया आविट्रेदक कट्रे पक मम वनगर्वाति चट्रेक खयातिट्रे मम अपययार्वाप्त धनरयावश हकोनट्रे कट्रे कयारण अनयादररति हको गयया हहै। इसि प्रकयार आविट्रेदक कट्रे पररवियाद पत मम उवल्लिसखति कथननों ककी प्रथम दृष्टया पमुवष्टि हकोतिस हहै। दन्नौरयान जयाजाँच एकत सियाक्ष्य एविसं अवभलट्रेखनों कट्रे पररशसलन सिट्रे प्रस्तिमुति , प्रकरण मम वविपकस दयारया प्रथम दृष्टया अपरयाध अन्तिगर्वाति धयारया-138 एन०आई०एक्ट कयाररति वकयया जयानया प्रतिसति हकोतिया हहै। अतितः आरकोपस उपरकोक्त ऊपर विवणर्वाति धयारया मम वविचयारण हट्रेतिमु तिलब वकयट्रे जयानट्रे यकोग्य हहै। आदट्रेश अवभयमुक्त भयागसरथ कट्रे वविरूद्ध अन्तिगर्वाति धयारया 138 एन०आई० एक्ट कट्रे अपरयाध कया प्रसिसंजयान लट्रेतिट्रे हहए उसिट्रे वविचयारण हट्रेतिमु तिलब वकयया जयातिया हहै। पररवियादस आविश्यक पहैरविस असंदर सिप्तयाह करम। बयाद पहैरविस सिमन जयारस हको। पतयाविलस वदनयासंक 22.11.2024 कको वियास्तिट्रे हयासजरस कट्रे पट्रेश हको। (स्विपपनल पयाण्डट्रेयनया अपर ससिवविल जज (सिस.वड.)/ अपर ममुख्य न्ययावयक मसजस्टटट्रेट, कनन्नौज। 11. the summoning order dated 13.11.2024. A perusal of the summoning order dated 13.11.2024 would reveal that the same is non-speaking un-reasoned as it does not even disclose the amount of the cheque, the dates on which the cheque was dishonoured and also the fact that on which date the statutory notice was issued. 12. In the opinion of the Court, the court below was under obligation to consider the said aspect of the matter and once the said exercise is lacking the summoning order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following terms:- (a) summoning order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.635 of 2023 (Balakram Vs. Bhageerath) by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj is set aside (b) the matter stands remitted to curt below back to pass a fresh order and (c) for facilitation of early disposal, the applicant shall submit a certified copy of the order before the court below by 19.06.2025. 13. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad