HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35417 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 13 Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 326 of 2025 (Sharik Khan v/s State & others) under section 138 Ν.Ι. Act Police Station Majhola District Moradabad as well as order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Additional Judge, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 336 of 2017 (M/S Vaishano Enterprises Imporial through Proprietor Vishal v/s M/S S.B.S. Electronic through proprietor Sharik Khan) under section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station Majhola District Moradabad. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 17.01.2017 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 "005875" of an amount of Rs.1,24,500/- dated 30.10.2016 and second cheque bearing number "000225" of an amount of Rs.22,600/-, which on presentation in the bank on 05.11.2016 came to be dishonoured on 17.11.2016 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 02.12.2016 and a complaint and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 18.12.2019 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not been served with any summons, but non-bailable warrants came to be issued Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sharik Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and when the same came to the knowledge of the applicant, after arrival of the police in his house, then he talked his lawyer on 01.05.2025 and thereupon preferred a revision on 30.05.2025 along with a delay condonation application, which came to be rejected by the court below on 31.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the revisional court has committed patent error or law apparent on the face of record in dismissing the revision on the ground of delay, particularly when the applicant gained knowledge only on 01.05.2025. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that there has been a considerable delay in filing the revision and once the applicant is not disputing the address which has been mentioned in the complaint, then in absence of any malafide being alleged, it is nothing but a lame excuse and it is for the applicant to contest the proceeding. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record. 6. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of the two cheques, a statutory demand notice came to be issued followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 18.12.2019. A revision came to be preferred by the applicant along with the delay condondation application and a perusal of the delay condonation application would reveal that only this much has been asserted that when non-bailable warrants were issued and when the police came to the house of the applicant, then he gained knowledge, however, there is no date mentioned as to when the non-bailable warrants were served upon the applicant or he gained knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings. As the only date mentioned which has been mentioned is the date, when the applicant entrusted his lawyer on 01.05.2025, to take out details. 7. In any view of the matter, since more than six years have passed and there is nothing on record to substantiate that the applicant has not been served with summons, particularly when the applicant has not disputed the address and there is no malafide has been alleged, thus the order passed by the revisional court cannot be said to be illegal. 8. Accordingly interference is declined. However at this stage, the applicant NA528 No. 35417 of 2025 2 seeks relief to the extent of enlargement on bail before the court below in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 9. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same. 10. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of bail application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). September 16, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 35417 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad