Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134370 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29024 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Hanuman Trading Company Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Singh,Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Presiding Officer/Additional Court Aligarh along with summoning order dated 25.01.2023 passed by Presiding Officer/Additional Court Aligarh, in complaint case no.6630 of 2022 (M/s B.V. Enterprises through Amit Upadhahay Vs. M/s Hanuman Trading Company through Proprietor Mukesh Kumar Gupta) under section 138 N.I Act, police station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Presiding Officer/Additional Court Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was preferred on 21.3.2022 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the opposite party no.2 through a power of attorney holder Amit Upadhyay with an allegation that certain amounts were due to the tune of Rs.86,424/- and as many as four cheques stood drawn which were dishonoured on 28.1.2022 for discharge of the liability and thereafter the statutory demand notice came to be issued on 3.2.2022 followed by the complaint on 21.3.022 thereafter on 25.1.2023 summoning order came to be issued summoning the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He has further submitted that a complaint itself is not maintainable particularly in view of the fact that there is no recital or averment in the complaint with respect to the fact that power of attorney was got issued in the name of sole proprietorship firm. Further he invites attention towards the power of attorney dated 10.1.2020 at page 35 of the paper book so as to contend that the cheque itself drawn on 10.1.2022 and stood dishonoured on 28.1.2022. He also submits that in the cross of the PW1, Amit Upadhyay certain depositions have been made in para 58 according to which are in favour of the applicant particularly when he has admitted that there is no power of attorney issued under the stamp of the Sole Proprietorship Firm, however, an application came to be preferred by the applicant for closing the proceedings which came to be rejected on 8.7.2025 by the court of Additional Judge, Aligarh. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the proceedings itself are not maintainable for want of authority under the power of attorney then the complaint is to fail. He however submits that the court below is to have examined the said issue and pass an order but the court below has shrieked its obligation in deciding the said application. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that first of all what would be the fact that the summoning order is dated 25.1.2023 an already the proceedings are underway, thus it is for the applicant to contest the trial making all the legal and factual grounds. 6. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, with respect to dishonour of four cheques on 28.1.2022 a statutory demand notice was issued on 3.2.2022, a complaint was lodged on 21.3.2022 and the applicant came to be summoned on 25.1.2023. The applicant surrendered and obtained bail on 27.7.2023 and the statement under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. of the applicant came to be recorded on 3.11.2023. The applicant cross-examined the PW1 on 7.3.2014 and 14.3.2014 and the date was fixed for leading the evidence and on 1.5.2024 the complainant preferred an application coming up with a stand that he does not propose to lead in further evidence, the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is underway and the dates have been fixed. 7. In view of the opinion of the Court, once the trial is underway and the applicant himself is contesting while taking recourse to the cross-examination of the PW1 this it is for the applicant to contest the trail raising all legal and factual grounds and it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to interfere. 8. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.8.2025/piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad