HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22035 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and 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. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 09.05.2023 in Complaint Case No.4124 of 2016 (Ram Ujagir Chaudhary Vs. Rajesh Kumar) as well as entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.4124 of 2016, under Section 138 NI Act, pending in the court of Civil Judge, (J.D.), FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Basti. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 22.01.2016 under Section 138 NI Act that the applicant in relation to the discharge of his liability withdrawn a cheque bearing no.257639 dated 07.06.2015 of an Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, G.A. Rajesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 10.06.2015, which was communicated to the applicant along with the dishonored memo on 23.09.2015 and thereafter, the complaint came to be preferred and the applicant came to be summoned on 09.05.2023 under Section 138 NI Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained particularly when there is no recital either in the complaint or in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the summoning order with regard to the date on which statutory demand notice came to be issued and served. He submits that in absence of the said recital, the complaint is bound to fail particularly when there is a clear cut infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act. 6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there, however, it could not dispute the fact that trial court had not adverted the question whether there was any issuance of statutory demand notice or not, which was imperative. They submit that the summoning order dated 09.05.2023 is set aside, matter be remitted back to the trial court to pass fresh order. 7. I have heard these submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- on 10.06.2015, a complaint came to be lodged on 22.01.2016. However, there is no recital either in the complaint or in the statement in the summoning order as to on which date the statutory demand notice came to be issued. Since, the said aspect is clearly missing in the summoning order thus, and has stated by the learned counsel for opposite NA528 No. 22035 of 2025 2 party no.2, as per the instructions, that the order be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass a fresh order. Thus, the present application is being decided in the following terms : a) the summoning order dated 09.05.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.4124 of 2016 (Ram Ujagir Chaudhary Vs. Rajesh Kumar) is set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the trial court to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. September 8, 2025 Priya NA528 No. 22035 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad