Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146121 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16881 of 2025 Applicant :- Mayank Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 till dictation of the order. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 11.12.2020 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1528 of 2021 (Old No.291/19) (Kayyum Ali Vs. Mayank Chauhan), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Rajabpur, District Amroha, pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C.-Ist, Amroha. 3. This Court on 22.7.2025 issued notices to the opposite party No.2. There is an office report dated 19.8.2025 that the notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2. 4. Treating the service of notice to be sufficient upon the opposite party no.2. This Court is proceeded with the matter. 5. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 25.5.2019 with an allegation that the applicant with respect to discharge his liability had drawn a cheque bearing No.092760 dated 22.04.2019 for an amount of rupees 20 lacs which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 29.04.2019 and thereafter again it was represented and it was dishonored on 6.5.2019 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 10.5.2019 and the complaint stood preferred on 25.5.2019. Thereafter the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 11.12.2020 by the Court Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Complaint Case No.291 of 2019. 6. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be stand for the simple reason that as per the list of the documents was submitted along with complaint was filed the part of the records of the court below, the statutory demand notice is dated 10.5.2019 but it has been sent on 11.5.2019 as a document to the some extent at page 31 of the paper book and the postal endorsement is at page 32 of the paper book. He further submits that once the statutory demand notice came to be dispatched through registered post on 11.5.2019 then 15 days clear time is to be accorded to the applicant-accused to make the payment, however, before lapsing of the same the complaint stood preferred on 25.5.2019. He submits that there is infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with 142 of N.I. Act and thus, the summoning order cannot be stands. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would be there however, he could not dispute the said factual position. He however submits that the summoning order is of the year of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 and the present application has been preferred on 4.5.2025 thus this Court may not come to the rescue of the applicant. 8. I have heard these submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 9. Apparently, the certified copy of complaint dated 25.5.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No.2 at page 23-A of the paper book shows that at page 23-A that the complaint was prefered on 25.5.2019 and as per paragraph No.4 the cheque stood dishonoured on 29.4.2019 followed by re-presentation and dishonoring on 6.5.2019 followed by statutory demand notice dated 10.5.2019 para 6 of of the complaint. The Court finds that the copy of the list of the documents under Order 11 Rule 5 shows that the statutory demand notice dated 10.5.2019 was sent through the registered post on 11.5.2019 and at page 32 happens to be the postal receipt dated 11.5.2019. Apparently, the summoning order dated 11.12.2020 does not take into account the aforesaid aspect of the matter as it only recites the date of issuance of statutory demand notice and there is no recital about the documents which is at page 31 of the paper book being list of the documents under Order 11 Rule 5 with respect to postal receipt dated 11.5.2019. Moreover, since the aforesaid aspect of the matter had not been noticed by the court below while summoning the applicant which is a fundamental issue which ought to have been taken note of before taking a decision for summoning or not and bearing in mind the fact that in paragraph No. 35 that the applicant could know about the summoning order dated 11.12.2024 the matter is needs to be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 10. Accordingly, application is decided in the following terms: A. The order dated 11.12.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. Complaint Case No.1528 of 2021 (Old No.291 of 2019) (Kayyum Ali Vs. Mayank Chauhan) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha is set aside. B. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. C. For early disposal of the applicant to submit a certified copy of the order by 4.9.2025. 11. Needles to point out that it is for the court below to consider all the aspects of the matter as has been discussed above after perusing the record. 12. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Md Faisal Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad