HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34673 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Lovekush Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint case no. 65 of 2024 (Dharmpal Singh Vs. Harpyari Mishra) under section 138 N.I. Act Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra as well as impugned summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no. 7, Agra whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no. 7, Agra summoned the applicant fixing date 28.2.2025 for appearing the applicant before the court concerned. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 19.12.2023 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant with respect to discharge of a liability had drawn a cheque bearing no.646561 of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 30.7.2023 which on presentation in the bank on 25.10.2023 and came to be dishonoured on 27.10.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 25.11.2023 and a complaint on 19.12.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 23.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that thought in the complaint itself it has been asserted in para 7 of the application that the statutory demand notice came to be issued on 25.11.2023 but it is submitted that the same was sent on 27.11.2023 that there is a clear infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lovekush Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harpyari Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of a cheque dated 30.7.2023 bearing no.646561 of Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.10.2023 a recital has been contained in para 7 of the complaint that a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 25.11.2023. In so far as the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the statutory demand notice came to be preferred post lapsing of 30 days and thus the complaint could not be maintainable as the same dated 27.11.2023. In the opinion of the Court, these are the matters which would need leading of the evidence and is a matter of defence. 8. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant seeks direction for bail. 9. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to prefer appropriate proceedings/ application for bail before the court below by 29.9.2025, the same shall be considered with most expedition. 10. Till the disposal of bail application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant with respect to the further proceedings of Complaint case no. 65 of 2024 (Dharmpal Singh Vs. Harpyari Mishra) under section 138 N.I. Act Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra as well as impugned summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no. 7, Agra. 11. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. September 11, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 34673 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad