Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125280 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21964 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramveer Singh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the summoning order dated 26.11.2018 passed by ACJM court no.3, Agra and order dated 06.05.2025 passed by ADJ, court no. 13 Agra as well as the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 1823 of 2018 U/s 138 of N.I. Act (Chandra Prakash Gupta vs. Ramveer Singh Verma), P.S. Iradat Nagar, District Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged on 31.07.2018 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant U/s 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of his liability a cheque bearing no. 0014542 dated 06.07.2018 amounting to Rs. 15 lac was drawn which on presentation in the bank stood dishonoured on 06.07.2018 with the remark of insufficient balance in the account and thereafter a statutory demand notice was issued on 11.07.2018 which was refused to be receive by the applicant in connivance with the postman followed by a complaint on 31.07.2018 and the applicant came to be summoned on 26.11.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the applicant at no point of time served with the notice and as per the complaint itself the allegation is that the applicant herein connived with the post man and shown himself to be out of station and the service could not be done. He submits that the same is not sufficient. Learned AGA submits that once the cheque would drawn and it was dishonoured then the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act would be there. I have heard the submissions and perused the record carefully. Apparently a cheque stood drawn which was dishonoured on 06.07.2018 followed by a demand notice dated 11.07.2018 which as per the allegations in the complaint the demand notice was not received on the pretext that the applicant was not in the house in collusion with the postman. As a matter of fact, the question as to whether the service was made upon the applicant or not, is a question of trial and the same cannot be into at a stage where summoning has been challenge. Particularly when there is a recital in the complaint that the applicant had connived with the postman. Thus the same become a subject matter of trial. Moreover, the presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act would there. The argument that the complaint cannot be proceeded in any manner whatsoever is not conceivable in view of the judgment in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (12) SCC 685 wherein in paragraph nos.10 and 11 which have been observed as under:- "10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. 11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more." Thus interference is declined and the application is hereby rejected. Leaving it open the the applicant to raise all legal and factual aspect while contesting the trial. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad