Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145073 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30686 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Hanuman Trading Company Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Faiz Ahmad,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.16889 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 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the opposite party no.2 through a power of attorney holder with an allegation that six cheques stood drawn which were dishonoured on 17.05.2022 for discharge of the liability and thereafter a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 27.05.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a complaint stood preferred through the power of attorney holder, Amti Upadhyay who happens to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2 but there is no recital or averment in the complaint with respect to the fact that the power of attorney was issued in the name of sole proprietorship firm. Further he invites attention towards the statement of Amit Upadhyay which is at page 40 of the paperbook according to which depositions have been made that he had admitted that there is no power of attorney under the stamp of sole proprietorship. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the proceeding itself was not maintainable, particularly, when there was no authorization by way of power of attorney holder and he had no personal knowledge about the said transaction then the complaint would fail. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that first of all the summoning order is dated 25.1.2023 and 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 six cheques on 17.05.2022, a statutory demand notice was issued on 27.05.2022 thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 25.1.2023. It is also the case of the applicant that he has obtained bail and the statement under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused- applicant came to be recorded, cross-examination is going on and the proceedings are under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is underway. 7. In the opinion of the Court, once the trial is underway and the applicant is contesting the trial then it is for the applicant to take all legal and factual position in that regard. It would not be appropriate at this stage for the Court to interfere in the present proceedings. 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 :- 21.8.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad