Allahabad High Court

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Harshit Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

3. Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has made a statement at Bar that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at this stage.

4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 17th December, 2024 under Section 138 of the N. I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein drawn two cheques bearing no.017217 of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 30th September, 2024 another cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- bearing no.017407, which on presentation in the bank on 25th October, 2024 came to be dishonoured and on 28th October, 2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20th November, 2024 and a complaint on 17th December, 2024. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 23rd January, 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, there has been non- compliance of the provisions contained under Ist proviso to sub-section 1 of 2 NA528 No. 29688 of 2025 Section 223 B.N.S.S., as the applicant was not put to notice at pre cognizance stage and secondly, the applicant has already submitted a reply to the demand notice dated 11th December, 2024 by virtue of the registered notice dated 14th December, 2024 and while inviting attention towards page 55, it is contended that on 16th December, 2024 the same was received and served upon the opposite party no.2 but the complaint came to be preferred on 17th December, 2024. Thus, there has been concealment about the reply to the statutory demand notice and reliance has been placed upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641.

6. Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabi Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010 decided on 25th September, 2025, now it has been mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no requirement to put to notice the accused at a pre cognizance stage in terms of Ist proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 223 B.N.S.S. in 138 N.I. Act proceedings and further, he submits that whatever might be the contentions with the applicant seeks to raise are to be taken in trial.

7. I have heard the submissions so made at the Bar and perused the record.

8. Apparently, the complaint should lodge on 17th December, 2024 with respect to dishonour of the two cheques. Though, the complaint stood lodged post enforcement of B.N.S.S. but the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabi Tari (supra) had the occasion to consider the said aspect and following was observed, which is as under:- "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 inactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons 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."

9. As regards to the second submission that there is no recital in the complaint with respect to the statutory demand notice, suffice it to quote the relevant extract of the reply dated 11th December, 2024:- 3 NA528 No. 29688 of 2025 "जवाब नोिटस िमनजािनव में० "प्रदुम्न प्रताप ट्रेिडग कम्पनी" िस्थत कस्बा कोंच जिरये प्रोप्राराइटर गीता िनरजन पत्नी चेतराम िनरंजन िन० कस्बा कोंच (स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इिण्डया के सामने) नदीगाँव रोड कस्वा व थाना कोंच जनपद जालौन द्वारा अिधवक्ता बृजेश कु मार िमश्रा एडवोके ट मु० गाँधीनगर कॉच, िजला जालौन। बनाम धीरेन्द्र िसह गुजर्र पुत्र श्री वीरबहादुर िसह गुजर्र िन० ग्राम कु समरा थाना जालौन िजला जालौन। महानुभाव, आपको, आपके द्वारा प्रेिषत नोिटस िदनांक 20.11.2024 के संदभर् में मेरे पक्षकार द्वारा जवाब नोिटस प्रेिषत बजिरये िकया जा रहा है- 1. यह िक आपके द्वारा अपने अिधवक्ता से िभजवाया गया नोिटस 1. िद० 20.11.2024 िनराधार, फजीर् तथा कू टरिचत एवं कपट पर आधािरत है। 2. यह िक आप द्वारा मेरी पक्षकािरयो को व्यापािरक साझेदारी में धोखा िदया गया, क्योंिक आप मेरी पक्षकािरया की फमर् से व्योहािरक रूप से साझेदार थे व संयुक्त रूप से एक साथ बैठकर मैंथा की खरीद-फरोख्त करते थे। यह कथन नोिटस के आपने मैथा मेरी पक्षकािरयां की फमर् को बेंचा उसके रूपयों की चैक है कतई गलत कथन है। 3. यह िक यह उक्त बैंक िजन्हें आपके हाथों में आई वह चैक वही कोरी िबना हस्ताक्षर िबना भरे व्योपािरक बक्से में रखी रहती थी जो आपके हाथ लग गई और आपने इन किथत कोरी चैकों का दुरूपयोग िकया व स्वयं भरकर व फजीर् हस्ताक्षर (दस्तखत) श्रीमती गीता देवी िनरंजन के बनाकर फमर् के िवरूद्ध दुरूपयोग िकया है। 4. यह िक िजन ितिथयों में आपने खरीद-फरोख्त मैंथा का आयल का वणर्न िकया है उन ितिथयों में फमर् के द्वारा कोई िजन्स का क्रय िवक्रय नहीं िकया गया। इस कालखण्ड में िजन्स को खरीद-खरोखत सम्भव भी नहीं थी, क्योंिक मण्डी सिमित का लाइसेन्स ही िरन्यु नहीं था इसिलय फमर् के द्वारा कोई मेंथा िकसी से खरीदना सम्भव ही नहीं था इसिलए आपके समस्त आरोप िक आपको मेरी पक्षकािरया ने किथत दोनों चैके िनगर्त की, कतई गलत व झूठ है। 5. यह िक यह सत्य है िक आपने मेरी पक्षकािरया को व उसकी फमर् को िवश्वासघात धोखा िदया है और वदिनयती से दोनों चैंके फमर् के बस्ते से िनकाल कर दुरूपयोग िकया है। 6. यह िक आपके द्वारा िभजवाया गया नोिटस गैर कानूनी व अधूरा है िजसमें कई आवश्यक तथ्य िछपाये गये हैं। मेरी पक्षकािरया गीता के पित का नाम गलत, खरीद-फरोख्त की ितिथ गायब, चैक कब लगाई कब वापस आयी यह समस्त तथ्य उसी कपट पूणर् भावना से िछपाकर मेरी पक्षकािरया को गैर कानूनी एवं फजीर् चैकें तैयार कर यह नोिटस िदया गया है जो कानूनी गलत है। मेरी पक्षकािरया के साथ धोखा है। अतः आपसे नोिटस का जवाब उक्त आधारों पर भेजकर आगाह िकया जाता है िक आप किथत फजीर् चैकों को आधार बनाकर मेरी पक्षकािरयों को िकसी प्रकार उत्पीिडत न करें। िदनांक 11.12.2024"

10. In the opinion of the Court, whatever grounds have been raised in reply to the statutory demand notice, they are subject matter of trial, as consideration whereof would be required only when the trial commences and not at this stage. At the stage of summoning, this Court is not required to delve into the reply submitted by the applicant to the statutory demand notice, as it would be prejudging an issue, which is to be thrashed out in 4 NA528 No. 29688 of 2025 trial, might be there is no recital about the reply to the statutory demand notice but each and every case is to be dependent upon its own facts and hard and fast rule cannot be assigned to it. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference.

11. The application stands disposed of.

12. Leaving it open for the applicant to take legal and factual submissions, while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. September 26, 2025 Zafar (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Harshit Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

3. Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has made a statement at Bar that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at this stage.

4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 17th December, 2024 under Section 138 of the N. I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein drawn two cheques bearing no.017217 of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 30th September, 2024 another cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- bearing no.017407, which on presentation in the bank on 25th October, 2024 came to be dishonoured and on 28th October, 2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20th November, 2024 and a complaint on 17th December, 2024. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 23rd January, 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, there has been non- compliance of the provisions contained under Ist proviso to sub-section 1 of 2 NA528 No. 29688 of 2025 Section 223 B.N.S.S., as the applicant was not put to notice at pre cognizance stage and secondly, the applicant has already submitted a reply to the demand notice dated 11th December, 2024 by virtue of the registered notice dated 14th December, 2024 and while inviting attention towards page 55, it is contended that on 16th December, 2024 the same was received and served upon the opposite party no.2 but the complaint came to be preferred on 17th December, 2024. Thus, there has been concealment about the reply to the statutory demand notice and reliance has been placed upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641.

6. Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabi Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010 decided on 25th September, 2025, now it has been mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no requirement to put to notice the accused at a pre cognizance stage in terms of Ist proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 223 B.N.S.S. in 138 N.I. Act proceedings and further, he submits that whatever might be the contentions with the applicant seeks to raise are to be taken in trial.

7. I have heard the submissions so made at the Bar and perused the record.

8. Apparently, the complaint should lodge on 17th December, 2024 with respect to dishonour of the two cheques. Though, the complaint stood lodged post enforcement of B.N.S.S. but the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabi Tari (supra) had the occasion to consider the said aspect and following was observed, which is as under:- "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 inactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons 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."

9. As regards to the second submission that there is no recital in the complaint with respect to the statutory demand notice, suffice it to quote the relevant extract of the reply dated 11th December, 2024:- 3 NA528 No. 29688 of 2025 "जवाब नोिटस िमनजािनव में० "प्रदुम्न प्रताप ट्रेिडग कम्पनी" िस्थत कस्बा कोंच जिरये प्रोप्राराइटर गीता िनरजन पत्नी चेतराम िनरंजन िन० कस्बा कोंच (स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इिण्डया के सामने) नदीगाँव रोड कस्वा व थाना कोंच जनपद जालौन द्वारा अिधवक्ता बृजेश कु मार िमश्रा एडवोके ट मु० गाँधीनगर कॉच, िजला जालौन। बनाम धीरेन्द्र िसह गुजर्र पुत्र श्री वीरबहादुर िसह गुजर्र िन० ग्राम कु समरा थाना जालौन िजला जालौन। महानुभाव, आपको, आपके द्वारा प्रेिषत नोिटस िदनांक 20.11.2024 के संदभर् में मेरे पक्षकार द्वारा जवाब नोिटस प्रेिषत बजिरये िकया जा रहा है- 1. यह िक आपके द्वारा अपने अिधवक्ता से िभजवाया गया नोिटस 1. िद० 20.11.2024 िनराधार, फजीर् तथा कू टरिचत एवं कपट पर आधािरत है। 2. यह िक आप द्वारा मेरी पक्षकािरयो को व्यापािरक साझेदारी में धोखा िदया गया, क्योंिक आप मेरी पक्षकािरया की फमर् से व्योहािरक रूप से साझेदार थे व संयुक्त रूप से एक साथ बैठकर मैंथा की खरीद-फरोख्त करते थे। यह कथन नोिटस के आपने मैथा मेरी पक्षकािरयां की फमर् को बेंचा उसके रूपयों की चैक है कतई गलत कथन है। 3. यह िक यह उक्त बैंक िजन्हें आपके हाथों में आई वह चैक वही कोरी िबना हस्ताक्षर िबना भरे व्योपािरक बक्से में रखी रहती थी जो आपके हाथ लग गई और आपने इन किथत कोरी चैकों का दुरूपयोग िकया व स्वयं भरकर व फजीर् हस्ताक्षर (दस्तखत) श्रीमती गीता देवी िनरंजन के बनाकर फमर् के िवरूद्ध दुरूपयोग िकया है। 4. यह िक िजन ितिथयों में आपने खरीद-फरोख्त मैंथा का आयल का वणर्न िकया है उन ितिथयों में फमर् के द्वारा कोई िजन्स का क्रय िवक्रय नहीं िकया गया। इस कालखण्ड में िजन्स को खरीद-खरोखत सम्भव भी नहीं थी, क्योंिक मण्डी सिमित का लाइसेन्स ही िरन्यु नहीं था इसिलय फमर् के द्वारा कोई मेंथा िकसी से खरीदना सम्भव ही नहीं था इसिलए आपके समस्त आरोप िक आपको मेरी पक्षकािरया ने किथत दोनों चैके िनगर्त की, कतई गलत व झूठ है। 5. यह िक यह सत्य है िक आपने मेरी पक्षकािरया को व उसकी फमर् को िवश्वासघात धोखा िदया है और वदिनयती से दोनों चैंके फमर् के बस्ते से िनकाल कर दुरूपयोग िकया है। 6. यह िक आपके द्वारा िभजवाया गया नोिटस गैर कानूनी व अधूरा है िजसमें कई आवश्यक तथ्य िछपाये गये हैं। मेरी पक्षकािरया गीता के पित का नाम गलत, खरीद-फरोख्त की ितिथ गायब, चैक कब लगाई कब वापस आयी यह समस्त तथ्य उसी कपट पूणर् भावना से िछपाकर मेरी पक्षकािरया को गैर कानूनी एवं फजीर् चैकें तैयार कर यह नोिटस िदया गया है जो कानूनी गलत है। मेरी पक्षकािरया के साथ धोखा है। अतः आपसे नोिटस का जवाब उक्त आधारों पर भेजकर आगाह िकया जाता है िक आप किथत फजीर् चैकों को आधार बनाकर मेरी पक्षकािरयों को िकसी प्रकार उत्पीिडत न करें। िदनांक 11.12.2024"

10. In the opinion of the Court, whatever grounds have been raised in reply to the statutory demand notice, they are subject matter of trial, as consideration whereof would be required only when the trial commences and not at this stage. At the stage of summoning, this Court is not required to delve into the reply submitted by the applicant to the statutory demand notice, as it would be prejudging an issue, which is to be thrashed out in 4 NA528 No. 29688 of 2025 trial, might be there is no recital about the reply to the statutory demand notice but each and every case is to be dependent upon its own facts and hard and fast rule cannot be assigned to it. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference.

11. The application stands disposed of.

12. Leaving it open for the applicant to take legal and factual submissions, while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. September 26, 2025 Zafar (Vikas Budhwar,J.)