Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63617 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1992 of 2025 Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Akash Patel (AOR No.A/A1718/2023), holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 30.10.2024, under section 138 N.I. Act in pursuant of Complaint Case no. 15448 of 2024, P.S. Ali Nagar, District Chandauli pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Chandauli. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 7.10.2024 against the applicant with an allegation that the opposite party no.2 had purchased the truck for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- were paid however, with respect to remaining Rs.5,00,000/- two cheques of Rs.2,50,000/- each was drawn and so far as the cheque no.000006 is concerned the same was of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which stood dishonoured when presented into the bank on 23.8.2024, a statutory notice was issued on 13.9.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained particularly when the applicant has made payment of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,70,000/- on 17.2.2022, 19.2.2022 and 3.3.2022. He further submits that once the said payments were made then the legally enforceable debt or liability would not be of the amount which is reflected in the cheque. He also submits that the said facts were not even disclosed in the complaint and he seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari, Criminal Appeal No.724 of 2025 decided on 26.3.2025. He also seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar; 2002 (9) SCC 415 so as to contend that even in the complaint there is no recital about the fact as to when the statutory demand notice dated 13.9.2024 was served upon the applicant. 5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand while countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far as the payment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,70,000/- is concerned the same cannot be considered at this stage particularly when is the matter of trial and there is nothing on record even otherwise to suggest the same except the statement of the bank. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, the cheque seems to have been issued which has been dishonoured. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant at certain part payments were made while relying upon page 56 which means the bank account cannot be gone into at this stage in the present proceedings as the same is a subject matter of trial. So far as the issue with regard to the fact that there has been non- disclosure of the said vital fact which will disentitle maintainability of the complaint is concerned, the same would have its effect at the time when the trial commences in the matter of acquittal or conviction of the accused. More so in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case M/s Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685 the complaint would be maintainable only when there is the recital of the fact that the demand notice was issued and it was served, rest of the thing has been held to be a matter of trial. 8. . Accordingly, no good ground is made out. The application is rejected. 9. At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be preferring an application under Section 147 of N.I. Act for compounding of the offences. 10. In the opinion of the Court, an application under Section 147 N.I. Act is preferred for compounding of the offence before the court concerned, then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in terms of the judgment in the case of Damodar S Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 SC 1907. Order Date :- 25.4.2025/piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad