Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17525 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2881 of 2025 Applicant :- Prem Prakash Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Padmakar Rai, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings as well as the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Court No.12, Jaunpur including the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Misc. No.72 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.1131 of 2020, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Mariyahun, District Jaunpur. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is interpolation in the return memo as well as in the affidavit of statement of the applicant filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. therefore, the impugned proceeding deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that against the summoning order, his revision was rejected on the ground of delay without considering the fact that sufficient explanation was given regarding the delay in filing the revision. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the grounds raised by the applicant is his defense which cannot be considered at this stage. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that it is not in dispute that the cheque in question was issued by the applicant in discharge of liability of loan which was taken by the applicant from the opposite party no.2. So far as contention of counsel for the applicant is that there appears to be interpolation in the return memo as well as in the affidavit of statement filed before the court below are concerned that defence of the applicant being disputed question of fact can be taken during trial. So far as the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur by which the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing the revision was rejected also shows that there is no illegality in that order because the main ground for explaining the delay in approaching the revisional court was that the applicant was not aware about the impugned proceeding. He came to know only after receiving the bailable warrant though on the basis of record, it is clear that summons sent to the applicant through registered post was duly served. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding as well as impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the present applicant is dismissed. 7. However, it is open for the applicant to appear before the court below and apply for bail and raise all the grounds available to him during trial. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 A.Kr. Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad