HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29176 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record. With the consent of the parties the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned summoning order dated 3.4.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras as well as the entire criminal proceedings of complaint Case No.18597 of 2024 (Atendra Chittdiya Vs. Pradeep Kumar) u/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Chandpa, District Hathras. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 24.7.2024 under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that the applicant herein with respect to discharge of the liability had drawn two cheques bearing No.946566 of Rs.1,00,000/- and Cheque No.946567 of Rs.1,50,000/- which came to be dishonored on presentation on 30.5.2024 and 3.6.2024 respectively and on the assurance of the applicant it was again represented on 20.6.2024 and 27.6.2024 respectively which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice dated 5.7.2024 which was served upon the applicant on 16.7.2024 and 8.7.2024 followed by a complaint dated 24.7.2024. Pursuant to the applicant came to be summoned on 3.4.2025 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that thought in the complaint Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Srijan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari, G.A. Pradeep Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) reference has been made to two cheques bearing No.946566 and 946567, however, the evidence on affidavit dated 23.7.2024 reference have only been made to the cheque No.946567 and not other cheque bearing No.946566. Learned counsel for applicant submits that once in the affidavit so submitted by the opposite party No.2 under Section 145 of the N.I. Act there is no reference of the cheque No.946566 then the applicant could not have been summoned with regard to dishonoring of the cheque for offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act relatable to the cheque No.946566. He submits that since the complaint and the summoning order are composite with relation to both the cheques thus they are liable to be set aside. 6. Sri Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 submits that though in the evidence on affidavit under Section 145 of the N.I. Act reference has been given of the cheque No.946567 and not of cheque no. 946566 but it happens to be a typographical error as the reference has been made to both the cheques while casting the case that on account of dishonoring of both the cheques offence were made under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He submits that even otherwise the provisions under Section 146 of the N.I. Act would come into play particularly when the Court is under obligation and it shall in respect of every proceedings under the Act on presentation of bank slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting the cheque has been dishonoured presume the fact of dishonouring of the said cheque until and unless said fact is the said fact is disproved. He however, as per the instruction from his clients submits that since the said aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the court below while summoning the applicant and according to him law permits him to take remedial steps in that regard. Thus the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 7. Learned State Law Officer has adopted the argument of learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 8. I have heard these submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 9. Apparently, complaint stood lodged of under Section 138 of N.I. Act with allegation that two cheques bearing No.946566 of 946567 came to be drawn which was dishonoured but evidence on affidavit under Section 145 of the N.I. Act only reference cheques No.946567since the said crucial aspect of the matter has not been considered by the court below while summoning the applicant and it is the stand of the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as pr per the instructions that the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back so as to avail the remedy which is permissible under law. Thus, this Court is proceeded to pass the following order: NA528 No. 29176 of 2025 2 (A) The summoning order dated 3.4.2025 passed in Compliant Case No.18597 of 2024 (Atendra Chittdiya Vs. Pradeep Kumar) by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras is set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. (B) It shall be open to the opposite party No.2 to take remedies as available under the law. (C) For Facilitation in earlier disposal the parties shall submit the certified copy of the orders by 23.9.2025. 10. Accordingly, the application disposed of. September 12, 2025 Md Faisal NA528 No. 29176 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad