HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26621 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed (A/S 2250/2013), counsel for opposite party no.2, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, counsel for opposite party no.2. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to the Summoning Order dated 16.04.2025 Passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Second Sambhal, in Complaint Case No. 2621 of 2024, Under Section 138 N.I Act P.S Nakhasa, District Sambhal. 4. The case of the applicant is that the complaint stood lodged on 20.08.2024 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that the applicant had drawn a cheque bearing No. 457688 of Rs. 11,12,580/-, presentation on 12.07.2024 which came to be dishonoured, again it was represented on 22.07.2024 which came to be dishonoured on 23.07.2024, a statutory demand notice was issued on 26.07.2024, followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 20.08.2024. In accordance with the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) Section 223 BNSS which mandates the Magistrate to put to notice the accused before at pre-cognizance stage and the applicant herein while putting his appearance had preferred an application dated 16.01.2024 for sending the subject cheque for hand writing expert for verification on the premise that already with respect to the other cheques pursuant to the mis-utilization of the same on 26.08.2024, a first information report came to be lodged by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rubina Begum .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the opposite party no. 2 bearing no. 0226 of 2024 under Section 316(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNSS, pursuant whereto the hand writing expert opinion was also obtained which was in favour of the applicant and the applicant came to be summoned. He submits that before summoning the applicant, it was obligatory upon the court below to have allowed the said application for getting the hand writing expert report as it was mis- utilized while making interpolations in the cheques and according to him, the court below has committed patent error of law apparent from the face of the records in rejecting the application on 16.04.2025 and summoning the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that application seeking hand writing expert at the stage of pre-cognizance was not maintainable, particularly, when the said application would be maintainable, in case, the same is preferred during the trial, however, he submits that the court below, after taking into account the stand taken by the applicant, has passed summoning order and it was for the applicant to contest the trial. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 7. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of the cheque bearing No. 457688, a statutory demand notice issued followed by a complaint. The cheque was dishonoured on 12.07.2024 and lastly on 23.07.2024 followed by statutory demand notice on 26.07.2024 and the first information report came to be lodged on 26.08.2024 against the applicant. The question whether an application could have been preferred for getting an hand writing expert at the pre-cognizance stage is concerned, this Court is not required to go into the said issue, particularly, it can be done in during trial. Merely because hand writing expert opinion has not been obtained before summoning the applicant cannot vitiate the summoning order, particularly, when the true import of the first proviso to sub-section (1) Section 223 BNSS is to take the stand of the accused at a pre-cognizance stage and to proceed while making a decision whether it is a case of summoning or not. 8. Since the summoning order taken into account each and every aspect of the matter and the Court is not required to enter into the merits of the matter but only prima facie record satisfaction that case is triable. NA528 No. 26621 of 2025 2 9. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. 10. Leaving it open to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial. September 8, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 26621 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad