Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124395 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26644 of 2025 Applicant :- Akshay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Omar Zamin, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 27.7.2017 as well as entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 1305 of 2022 (Old Complaint Case No. 3220 of 2017) (Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Akshay Kumar) Under Section-138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Kavinagar, District- Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 18.11.2015 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation with that with respect to discharge of a liability of two cheques bearing No. 798371 of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 30.09.2015 and No. 798375 of Rs. 1,62,000/- dated 30.09.2025 which came to be dishonored on 03.10.2015 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 12.10.2015 and the complaint on 18.11.2015 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 27.07.2017. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque was drawn on behalf of the company by the applicant as a Director and the company was not arraigned as an accused and thus the same is not as per the judgment in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661. He further submits that the entire complaint is bound to fall and it cannot be proceeded with. 4. Learned State Law Officer submits that the summoning order is dated 27.07.2017 and it would not be appropriate for the Court to interfere after eight years. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, with respect to dishonour of two cheques, a complaint stood lodged and pursuant whereto, the applicant came to be summoned on 27.07.2017. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to what is the stage of the trial, he submits that the applicant is contesting the trial and he has joined the proceedings and it is the stage of final argument. 7. In the opinion the Court, once the summoning order is of the year 2017 and the applicant is contesting the trial and the matter is already at the stage of final argument then it is for the applicant to raise all legal and factual grounds including the necessity for arraigning the company as an accused in the proceedings and take aid of the judgment in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra). 8. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. 9. Leaving it open to the applicant to take legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad