HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32814 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 1067 of 2019, (Ravindra Kumar Versus Mukesh Kumar) under section 138 N.I. Act in pursuance of the summoning order dated 17.09.2021, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 20.11.2019 by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn two cheques bearing number "63883" and "63891" of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.30,000/-, and the said cheques on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 18.10.2019 followed by statutory demand notice dated 04.11.2019 which was served upon the applicant on 06.11.2019 and a complaint was preferred on 20.11.2019 and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 17.09.2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained, as there has been a clear infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act for the simple reason that 15 days' clear notice from the receipt of the statutory notice is not accorded to the applicant so as to enable him to make the payment, thus the complaint is premature. He submits that the applicant has already obtained Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukesh Kumar Alias Mohit Soni .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) bail and is contesting the matter. He submits that the said legal objection, which is to be raised by the applicant be considered in correct perspective. 4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same. 5. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and looking into the fact that the applicant has already obtained bail, and the summoning order is of 17.09.2021, and the present application has been presented in the year 2025 and since the applicant is contesting the trial, the interference is declined. As regards the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that already a state case has also been preferred, thus both the proceedings cannot go simultaneously, the same is a defence. 6. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the trial before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds, as available and permissible under law and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. September 9, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 32814 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad