HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36359 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to application and quash the summoning order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahar along-with quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4252 of 2018, Under Section 138 N.I. Act Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar ( Umardaraj Vs Nizam). 3. The case of the applicant is that on 19.07.2018 proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stood lodged with relation to the dishonoring of the cheques. Thereafter, the said proceedings which were earlier Misc. Case No. 1405 of 2018 transformed into a complaint case bearing no. 4252 of 2018 and post recording of the statements under Section 200, the applicant came to be summoned on 29.01.2019 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire proceedings so sought to be initiated post lodging of proceedings under Section 156(3) cannot be said to be maintainable particularly when as per clause (a) sub-section (1) of Section 142 starts with non obstante clause the court can only take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 only by way of complaint in writing. Submission is that the proceedings under Section 156(3) is not maintainable and further as per the order sheet dated 19.07.2018 report was also sought from the police in that regard. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench in Application u/s 482 No. 1808 of 2025 (Sudhir Kumar Goyal Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 12.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant as per instructions from his client submits that though the summoning order is dated 29.01.2019 and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nizam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) though the application has been presented before this Court in September, 2025 and bailable warrants have been issued so the applicant seeks to contest the trial while contending that the proceedings itself is not maintainable from the very inception taking the said ground and a direction be issued to the court below to consider the said aspect of the matter. 4. Learned State Law Officer has no objection to the same. 5. Considering the submissions so made across the bar as well as the specific stand taken by the counsel for the applicant and looking into the fact that the applicant seeks to take all the legal grounds while contesting the trial amongst others and also the fact that the summoning order is dated 29.01.2019 and the present application has been presented in the Court in the month of September, 2025 and six years have passed. Accordingly, interference at this stage is declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to raise all legal and factual contentions which are permissible in law and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. September 22, 2025 Rajesh NA528 No. 36359 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad