HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34001 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Krishna Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 10.07.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonbhadra as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.7301 of 2025 (Vinita Shukla Versus Ravikant pandey) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record. With consent of the parties the application is decided at the fresh stage. 4. The case of the applicant is that complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 under Section 138 N.I. Act. The applicant in respect of discharge of liability had drawn cheque bearing no. 533271 of Rs. 25,00,000/- on presentation in bank came to be dishonoured on 25.04.2025 and on the assurance of applicant cheque was again presented on 16.05.2025 in the bank which came to be dishonoured on 17.05.2025 followed by statutory demand notice dated 27.05.2025 and on 26.06.2025 the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act came to be passed and thereafter on 10.07.2025 the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 N.I. Act. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Pathak Ravikant Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that since the complaint had been lodged post enforcement of BNSS, 2023. Thus, in view of the provisions contained under (i) proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. The applicant ought to have put to notice at pre summoning stage which has not been done and in this regard and he seeks to rely upon the paragraph 25 of the application. 6. However, he submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010 decided on 25.09.2025, there is no requirement to put the accused to notice at pre-cognizance stage. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged on 26.06.2025 with relation to dishonour of cheque and summoning order came to be passed on 10.07.2025. 9. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there is any infraction of the provisions of Section 138 and Section 142 N.I. Act, the answer is in negative. The only arguments raised is that applicant has not been put to notice at pre-cognizance stage. In view of under (i) proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. In Sanjabij Tari (Supra), the following words observed:- "36. A........ E. Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok vs. Fayaz Aahmad, 2025 SCC Online Kar 490 has taken the view that since NI act is a special enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summon to the accused before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of BNSS) of complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage." 10. Accordingly, no ground is made interfere. NA528 No. 34001 of 2025 2 11. The application stands disposed of. 12. Leave it open for the applicant to contest the trial while taking legal and factual submissions. September 25, 2025 Imtiyaz NA528 No. 34001 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad