HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32635 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1.Supplementary affidavit filed today is take on record. 2. Heard Sri K.K. Mishra learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.P. Gupta learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel 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 affidavits and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint No. 265 of 2023 (Tejpal Singh vs Sukhdei), as well as summoning order dated 05.02.2024 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C. & with Revisional court order dated 28.10.2024, Under Section 138 N.Ι. a Act, in complaint No. 265 of 2023 (Tejpal Singh Vs Sukhdei), Police Station Pat wai, District Rampur. 3. The case of the applicant is that on 11.7.2023 a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stood lodged with an allegation that the applicant with respect to discharge of a liability had drawn cheque which on presentation in the bank on 29.4.2023 was dishonoured thereafter on assurance of the applicant the said cheque was again presented in the bank on 10.5.2023 which was again dishonoured followed by another attempt to get in cash while presenting in the bank which was dishonoured and statutory demand Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Mishra Sukhdei .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) notice came to be issued on 24.6.2023 and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. on 11.7.2023 whereby the applicant came to be summoned on 5.2.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly though the cheque stood dishonoured on three occasions, firstly on 29.4.2023, secondly, 10.5.2023 but there is no date mentioned when the cheque stood dishonoured on the third occasion and the statutory demand notice came to be issued on 24.6.2023. Submission is that in statutory demand notice has been issued beyond 30 days which is not permissible as per the provisions contained Section 138 and Section 142 of the N.I. Act and secondly in para- 10 of the complaint it has been alleged that the statutory demand notice came to be issued on 24.6.2023 however a recital has been made that it might have been served. Further submission is that there has to be specific recital in that regard that the date on which the service has been made. 5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that cheques stood dishonoured on third occasion but due to inadvertence the date was not mentioned however according to him there are supporting documents available on record and the summoning be set aside neither be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, with respect to the dishonouring of a cheque on 29.4.2023 and 10.5.2023 and on third occasion (undated) a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 24.6.2023 and the complaint on 11.7.2023. Since on the second occasion the cheque stood dishonoured on 10.5.2023 and there is no recital about the date on which on third occasion the cheque stood dishonoured and the statutory demand notice came to be issued on 24.6.2023 thus, there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the statutory demand notice came to be issued within a period of 30 days. Moreover there NA528 No. 32635 of 2025 2 is also nothing on record to suggest that on which date the service of statutory demand notice was made. Since the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the court below and the summoning order is silent thus, the summoning order cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly the application is being decided in the following terms:-(a) the order dated 5.2.2024 passed in complaint No. 265 of 2023 by the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C, Rampur is set aside, (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order, (c) for facilitation and early disposal the applicant shall submit the certified copy of the order passed today by 19.9.2025. 10. The applications stand disposed of. September 9, 2025 piyush NA528 No. 32635 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad