Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125370 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19761 of 2025 Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Jain and another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chand Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Prashant Vardhan Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Prashant Vardhan for the opposite party no. 2. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties have made that they do not propose to file any further affidavit, the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the applicant that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 08.06.2020 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that the applicant with regard to discharge of his liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 235980 dated 20.02.2020 for Rs. 1,19,45,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 24.02.2020 with the remark 'account closed' followed by a statutory demand notice dated 17.03.2020 and the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on 08.06.2020 and the applicant came to be summoned on 24.03.2021 under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. Questioning the summoning order, a revision came to be preferred which was rejected on 18.01.2025. 5. Assailing both the orders, the present application has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order and the revisional order cannot be sustained and furthermore, the complaint is bound to fail particularly when as per the own case of the complainant post dishonor of the cheque on 24.02.2020, a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 17.03.2020 and in para 7 of the complaint, it has been alleged that the same was refused to be received, he while inviting attention towards page 191 of the paper book submits that first of all, the said notice had been sent to the address of the complainant himself whereof the applicant does not reside as he seeks to rely upon the sale deed dated at page 41 of the paper book. He further submits that the service of notice is not sufficient and there is no question of any deem sufficiency. It is also submitted that assuming without admitting that there was deem service of the notice then too post lapsing of 15 days to make the payment after service of the notice, the cause of action would arise within a period of 30 days and here the complaint has been filed after 45 days. He submits that, thus, the complaint itself was not maintainable as it was not as per the time limit so specified under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act. Further submission is that there is no legal or liability so as to attract Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant that in absence of any application for condonation of delay, the delay could not be condoned and the same is not forthcoming from the summoning order. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the applicant herein in the resident of the same address where the notices were sent and he purposely and intentionally is avoiding service of notice. He further submits that though the complaint was lodged beyond the permissible period but the Magistrate looking into the facts and circumstances of the case condoned the delay. He, however, submits that much water have flown and now the handwriting exert report has also been summoned and according to him, the learned counsel for the applicants may raise all the factual and legal issues at the time during the continuance of the trial. 8. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be the grounds, the same in the wake of the fact that much water has flown, the issues can be raised and appropriately dealt in the trial. 9. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 10. The sole question which arises is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, post issuance of the summoning order, the applicant preferred revision which came to be dismissed and as per the documents available on record, there happens to be the report of the handwriting expert also meaning thereby that the proceedings are underway. Bearing in mind the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant as noted above and the fact that the proceedings are continuing, thus, it would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage, 11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues which have been argued amongst others and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad