HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29819 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Bharat Garg on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Bharat Garg for the opposite party no. 2. 3. 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 the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application be decided at the fresh stage. 4. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the summoning order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 46807/2024 (C.N.R. No. UPMO-04056520-2024) (Vijay Veer Singh Vs. Hashmat Ali), pending in the court of learned Additional Judge 138 N.I. Act, Moradabad, summoned under section 138 N.I. Act, vide order dated 11.12.2024, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, which has been passed without following the provisions of section 223(1) B.N.S.S. 5. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred on 24.10.2024 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no. 000002 dated 15.07.2024 of an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 04.09.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20.09.2024 and a complaint came to be filed on 24.10.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned on 11.12.2024 under Section 138 of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hashmat Ali .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not been put to notice in view of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS as the complaint filed post enforcement of the BNSS on 24.10.2024. He, thus, submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 6. Learned State Law Officer as well as the counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there. He submits that the summoning order be set aside as there has been non compliance of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of a cheque a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 20.09.2024 and the complaint has been filed on 24.10.2024. Since a specific stand has been taken by the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as per instructions that the applicant has not been put to notice at pre-cognizance stage as per first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS and the summoning order be set aside, thus, the application is being decided in the following manner.- (a) the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 46807 of 2024 summoning the applicant is set aside; (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law; (c) for facilitation and early disposal, the order passed today be submitted before the court below by 10.10.2025. 9. With the above observation, the application stands disposed of. September 23, 2025 Rajesh NA528 No. 29819 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad