Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57372 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29657 of 2024 Applicant :- Harsh Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Rahul Kumar Sharma, counsel for opposite party no. 2. 3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the criminal complaint dated 07.03.2024 u/s 138 N.I. Act as well as summoning order dated 06.06.2024 passed by CJM, Hathras in Complaint Case No.384/2024, Under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, Dist- Hathras, Harishbala Vs. Harsh Agrawal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant who was arrayed as an accused no. 1 with an allegation that a cheque of an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- bearing no. 0490914 drawn from Canera Bank dated 23.01.2024 of the Account No. 0246201082851 when presented in the Bank was dishonoured pursuant whereto a statutory demand notice was issued on 05.02.2024. However, he in failing to make the payment, the complaint stood lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the court below cannot be sustained even for a single moment, particularly, when in the statutory demand notice as well as in the complaint, the dishonouring of the cheque was bearing No. 0490914 drawn from Canara Bank of India dated 23.01.2024 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- but from the perusal of the cheque though the amount is the same, however, the cheque No.040914, thus, according to him, the demand notice as well as the complaint itself cannot be proceeded as they depicted a different cheque and thus they are defective. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has not taken into account the aforesaid aspect of the matter and as in a mechanical manner, summoned the applicant. 6. Shri Rahul Kumar Sharma, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that it appears that there happens to be a typographical error as it is not in dispute that the amount is the same, however, due to inadvertence, the cheque number was written as 0490914 instead of 040914. He further submits that even the bank account so sought to be depicted in the complaint and the demand notice is also correct of the person who has issued the cheque. However, he on instructions submits that there has been an error, thus, according to him that the summoning order be quashed and the applicant be accorded opportunity to proceed further in accordance with law as per the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act. 7. Shri S.K. Singh, learned AGA has also not disputed the said submissions. 8. To such a submission, learned counsel for the applicant has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same. 9. Considering the fact that there happens to be incorrect recital of the cheque number in the demand notice and the complaint viz-a- viz the actual cheque and also the stand taken by the opposite party no. 2 as per the instructions, the summoning order dated 06.06.2024 is set aside. 10. It is open for the opposite party no. 2 to proceed with a fresh proceedings in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act as per law. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed off. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad