Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118825 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23396 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Rastogi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Singh,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the summoning order dated 11.10.2017 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Meerut in Complaint case no. 6941/2017 (Originally numbered as Crl. Complaint Case No.5157/2017 in Court of A.C.J.M-IV, Meerut) (M/s Balaji Engineers Vs. M/s Aarvans CC Infra Pvt. Ltd. and others), u/s 138 N.I.Act P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut presently numbered as Crl. Compliant Case No.1385/2020 pending in the court of Addl. Court No.2, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant and two others along with a company with an allegation that the applicant along with the two others were the Directors and with respect to discharge of a liability a cheque came to be drawn bearing number 997643, 997644, of Rs.98,000/- each dated 13.06.2017 and 13.07.2017 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 19.07.2017 information whereof was received by the opposite party no.2 on 20.07.2017 statutory notice was issued on 17.08.2017 and the complaint came to be filed on 14.09.2017 pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned on 11.10.2017 under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not the signatory of the cheque and further while inviting attention towards paragraph 12, it is contended that the company had become defunct since 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no point of being served notices and no legal debt or liability stands accrued so as to invoke provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6.Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the summoning order is of dated 2017 and the present application has been preferred in the year 2025, there is inordinate unexplained delay and once the cheques stood drawn and dishonoured that the presumptions under section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. Post dishonour of the cheque of an amount of Rs. 98000/- each a complaint came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant on 14.09.2017 pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned on 11.10.2017. The question as to whether the applicant happens to be the Director of the company or not and further the company had become defunct and he has no connection with the same is not required to be gone into at this stage particularly after a period of 8 years when there is nothing on record to show that where there is a plausible explanation for delay. Even otherwise the complete order sheet is also not available on record. 8. On a pointed being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to what was the reason of delay, he submits that the applicant was not served with the notice. Looking into the overall fact situation and also the fact that the summoning order is dated 11.10.2017 and the application has been preferred and has been presented before this court on 30.05.2025 and approximately 8 years have passed thus it would be appropriate but for the applicant to contest the trial. No case is made out for interference. 9. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad