HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27813 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Sri J.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 9.11.2023 and non bailable warrant order dated 19.4.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.13560 of 2023 (Yadvendra Dutt Dwivedi Vs. Vimlendu Shekhar and others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party No.2 on 7.10.2023 under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that the applicant herein had drawn a cheque on behalf of the company M/s Kashi Infrazone Ltd. Company cheque bearing No.101613 of Rs.5,75,000/- dated 7.8.2023 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 7.8.2023 thereafter again it was represented on 4.9.2023 which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice dated 6.9.2023 and a complaint on 7.10.2023. Pursuant to the applicant came to be summoned on 9.11.2023 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that though the cheque in question which is stated to have been drawn and has been dishonoured on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rizvi Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Vimlendu Shekhar And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) behalf of the company but the company has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. Submission is that arraigning the company as an accused is imperative as in this regard reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada V. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Ltd. 2012 (5) SCC 661 and Himanshu V. B. Shivamurthy and Anr. AIR 2019(1) 3052. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the summoning order be set aside. 5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured then the presumption under Section 138 of N.I. Act is there. However, they could not dispute the fact that that the company on whose behalf the cheque has been drawn ought to have been arraigned as an accused and before arraigning in as an accused in the complaint a statutory demand notice ought to have been issued. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 thus concedes that the complaint is not maintainable according to him the summoning order be set aside. However, liberty be accorded to applicant to take appropriate relief in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the decision of this Court in Application U/S 482 No.13324 of 2017 (Pankaj Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sate of U.P. and Another) dated 21.7.2017. 6. I have heard these submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, the cheque stood drawn on behalf of the company however, there is nothing on record to suggest that statutory demand notice came to be issued to the company and further the same has been conceded by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Morevoer, the company has also not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint thus in view of the judgment in Aneeta Hada (Supra) and Himanshu (Supra) the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly the summoning order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the summoning order dated 9.11.2023 in Complaint Case No.13560 of 2023 (Yadvendra Dutt Dwivedi Vs. Vimlendu Shekhar and others) and non bailable warrant order dated 19.4.2025 are set aside. It is hereby open to the complainant/opposite party No.2 to move before the Court concerned for appropriate relief and may file an application under Section 14 of the NA528 No. 27813 of 2025 2 Limitation Act seeking execution on the period on ground that he was seeking remedy before the other forum. 8. Accordingly, the application disposed of. September 23, 2025 Md Faisal NA528 No. 27813 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad