HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30113 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Avanish Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Ashish Gupta, counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning Order dated-28.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no-2, Meerut, in Complaint no-20311/2024 (Akash Sirohi Vs. Zakira Parveen), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Dehli Gate, Distt-Meerut and B.W. Order Dated 17.04.2025 and 09.06.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no-2, Meerut. 3. The case of the applicant is that the complaint stood lodged on 23.12.2024 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.035085 of Rs.5,90,000/- dated 22.11.2024 which on presentation in the bank and came to be dishonoured on 22.11.2024, followed by a statutory demand notice was issued on 05.12.2024, followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 23.12.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned on 28.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that summoning order cannot be sustained, particularly, when the applicant-accused was not put to notice in view of the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in in Application U/S 482 No. 10390 of 2024; Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avanish Kumar Upadhyay, Raj Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Gupta, G.A. Zakira Parveen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and another. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 5. Shri Ashish Gupta, 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 28.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no-2, Meerut, in Complaint no-20311/2024 (Akash Sirohi Vs. Zakira Parveen) 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. 30113 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad