Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139355 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22774 of 2025 Applicant :- Kamil Chaudhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2.This Court on 23.7.2025 proceeded to pass the following order:- "Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2. Put up this case as fresh on 14.08.2025." 3. There is an office report dated 13.8.2025 that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 personally as the per the report Learned C.J.M. Rampur. 4. Till the dictation of the order nobody is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Treating the service to be sufficient the court is proceeded with the matter. 5. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the order dated 26.08.2017 passed in complaint Case No. 2217 of 2017 (Jafar Khan Vs Kamil Chaudhari), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur. 6. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 13.6.2017, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque of an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- bearing no.210308 dated 24.3.2017 which on presentation in the bank on 15.4.2017 came to be dishonoured on 18.4.2017 followed a statutory demand notice dated 18.5.2017 which came to be served on 4.5.2017 and the complaint on 13.6.2017. Thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 26.8.2017 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that in para 3 of the complaint the assertion is that on 18.5.2017a registered demand notice came to be issued but it was served on 4.5.2017. He has further submitted that it is not humanly possible that a demand notice would be issued at a later point of time and the service would be made anterior to it. He has also submitted that even in the statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. dated 3.7.2017 the same averment has been made. 8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the same appears to be either a typographical error or any other other, however the said aspect of the matter is not being considered by the court below while summoning the applicant though bailable warrant has been issued to the applicant. 9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 10. Para 3 of the complaint dated 13.6.2017 reads as under:- "3. यह कक पररववदद नन उक चचक कक बववत कदनवनक 18.05.2017 कक कवपकद कक जररयन रजजसटरर पकसट नककटस पनकषत ककयव तथव चचक कक धनरवकश तलब कक। नककटस कदनवनक 04.05.2017 कक कवपकद नन पवप कर जलयव, लनककन आज तक चचक कक धनरवकश कव कवपकद नन भभगतवन नहह ककयव हच। ममल चचक सन 210300 সসলল 3,00,000/- रपकन करभवकवत 24/3/2015 अथरनव कन सवक सच हच।' 11. Further para 5 of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "5. यह कक हवजलफ नन उक चचक कक बववत कदनवनक-18.5.2017 कक कवपकद कक जररयन नककटस पकसट पनकषत ककयव तथव चचक कक धनरवकश तलब कक। कवपकद कवकमल चचधरद नन कदनवनक 4.5.2017 कक नककटस पवप कर जलयव हच, लनककन आज तक हवजलफ कक चचक कक धनरवकश कवपकद कवकमल चचधरद नन भभगतवन नहद ककयव हच।" 12. The summoning order further reads as under:- 26-08-2017 पतववलद आदनशवथर पनश हहयद। बहस तलबद पर पररववदद कन कवदवन अजधवकव कक पमवर कनयत कदनवनक पर सभनव जव चभकव हच। सनकनप मम पररववदद कव कथन हच कक कवपकद नन पररववदद सन अपनद जररत कन जलयन बतचर कजर 3,80,000/- रपयन 15 कदन बवद ववपस करनन कक कहकर कदनवनक 01-03-2017 कक जलयन थन। जब पररववदद नन कवपकद सन उक रपयन मवनगन तक कवपकद नन पररववदद कक चचक सन० 210308 मभ० 3,80,000/- रपयन कदनवनककत 24-03-2017 पनजवब ननशनल बबक शवखव हसनपभर जन०पद० नगर कव कदयव। पररववदद नन उक चचक कदनवनक 15-04-2017 कक भभगतवन हनतभ जजलव सहकवरद बबक जल० रवमपभर शवखव सवर मम जमव ककयव, परनतभ कदनवनक 18-04-2017 कक कवपकद कन खवतन मम अपयवरप धनरवकश हकनन कन कवरण उक चचक अनवदररत कर कदयव। उक सनबनध मम पररववदद नन अपनन अजधवकव कन मवधयम सन कवपकद कक नककटस कदयव, परनतभ नककटस कदयन जवनन कन उपरवनत भद ककई भभगतवन नहह ककयव हच। पररववदद नन अपनन पररववदपत कन समथरन मम धवरव 200 दन०प०सन० अनरतगत सवयन कव शपथपत पसतभत ककयव गयव तथव दसतववनजद सवकय कन रप मम चचक, बबक सन सनबनजधत पपत, रजजसटरद कक रसदद, नककटस कवपकद दवजखल कक हच। पररववदपत, शपथपत व दसतववनजद सवकय सन अकभयभक कन कवरद पथम दषटव धवरव-138 परवकमय कवलनख अजधकनयम कन तहत कवयरववहद ककयन जवनन कव आधवर पयवरप हच। आदनश अकभयभक कवकमल चचधरद कक धवरव-138 परवकमय कवलनख अजधकनयम कन अनतगरत कवचवरण हनतभ बजररयन सममन कदनवनक 05-10-2017 कक तलब ककयव जवयन। पररववदद आवशयक पचरवद कनयमवनभसवर करन। 13. A conjoint reading of the para 3 of the complaint dated 13.6.2017 as well as para 5 of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the summoning order dated 26.8.2017 would reveal that the court below has been adverted to the said crucial aspect of the matter regarding issuance and the service of the statutory demand notice which is imperative before lodging of the complaint. 14. Considering the overall facts situation the present application is being decided in the following terms:-(a) the summoning order dated 26.8.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 2217 of 2017 (Jafar Khan Vs Kamil Chaudhari) is set aside, (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh summoning order strictly in accordance with law and (c) for facilitation and early disposal the applicant shall submit the certified copy of the order passed today by 29.8.2025. 15. The applications stand disposed of. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad