Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81364 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17244 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Alias Chandra Prakash Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rama Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4671 of 2019, (Kahkasha Noor Vs. Chandra Prakash), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court-II,Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party 2 against the applicant on 26.06.2019 with an allegation that with relation to discharge of liability, the applicant had drawn a cheque in favor of the applicant bearing number 000004 for an amount Rs. 1,30,000/- dated 5.3.2019 which when presented in the bank stood dishonoured on 26.3.2019 and on the assurance of the applicant, the cheque was again presented on 15.5.2019 followed by a complaint dated 26.6.2019. Thereafter on 31.07.2019, the applicant was summoned under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the summoning order could not have been passed, summoning the applicant under section 138 of the N.I. Act for the simple reason that in the complaint itself there has been no reference or recital as to whether statutory legal notice was issued or not. The complaint in other words is silent about the same. He submits that one of the requirements under section 138 of the N.I. Act is that a statutory notice is to be issued within one month from the date of the knowledge of the dishonor of the cheque enabling to drawer the cheque to make the payment within 15 days and once statutory notice has not been issued, then the complaint is bound to fall, making the summoning order vitiated. It is thus prayed that the summoning order be quashed. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it may be that there is no recital in the complaint about issuance of the statutory notice but in the summoning order dated 31.7.2019, the court has considered the notice as the same was before the court below and on the basis of the statutory notice the applicant has been summoned. He further submits that the present application has been presented on 11.05.2025 after approximately 6 years and in between the proceedings are underway and as per the order sheet dated 25.09.2023, the applicant has also got recorded its statement. He submits that in absence of any cogent or plausible reason occasioning delay in filing the present application, this court may not interfere at this stage. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently the complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 26.06.2019 with an allegation that a cheque of Rs.1,30,000 was dishonoured. Indeed, summoning order came to be issued on 31.07.2019 and further the order sheet dated 25.09.2023, would suggest that the applicant has participated in the said proceedings while setting out its defence that though the cheque has been drawn by the applicant but he had paid the entire amount which was reflected in the cheque. 7. There has been no plausible explanation set forth, for consideration for delay in filing the present proceedings after a period of 6 years and once the applicant himself has participated in the proceedings, then it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere at this stage. 8. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to raise all factual and legal issues while facing the trial and this court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expeditions strictly in accordance with law as per the mandate of Sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Act. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad