HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28528 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the Complaint Case no 537 of 2025 (M/s Shri Dauji Vardhana Bhandar Vs M/s Mahashay Ji and Sons), under section 138 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kwarsi, District-Aligarh against the applicant pending before the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh and quash the summoning order dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh. 3. The case of the applicants is that the complaint stood lodged on 10.03.2025 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.068186 of Rs.41,61,047/- which on presentation in the bank and came to be dishonoured on 04.02.2025, followed by a statutory demand notice was issued on 11.02.2025, followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 10.03.2025 and the applicant came to be summoned on 26.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that summoning order cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained since there has been non-compliance of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that at a pre-cognizance stage, the applicants ought to have been put to notice and no summoning could have been passed until and unless and the applicants would have given an opportunity to put forward their stand. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun Rahul Jindal @ Rahul Agarwal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Shri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA submits that whatever might be, since the applicant has not been put to notice at a pre-cognizance stage in view of the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS, thus, the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 7. Apparently, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act came to be preferred on 23.12.2024 post enforcement of the BNSS. Since it has not been disputed that the applicant was not put to notice at a pre-cognizance stage in view of the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS and according to the counsel for the opposite party no. 2, the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 8. Thus, the application decided in the following manner: (a) The summoning order dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh, in Complaint Case no 537 of 2025 (M/s Shri Dauji Vardhana Bhandar Vs M/s Mahashay Ji and Sons) is set aside. (b). The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 10. Post remand, it is expected that the court below shall undertaken the proceedings while passing a fresh order with most expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournments and, in case, adjournment is being granted for any eventuality then the same should be on the genuine reasons. September 24, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 28528 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad