Pioneer Gold Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. through Director Sri Chetan Malik and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11197 of 2025

Pioneer Gold Hybrid Seeds Pvt Ltd Through Director Sri Chetan Malik And Another

recor r ean a n	Versus noer	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Sachin Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	Sushil Kumar Pandey, G.A.
Court No.- 75

¶5

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sachin Malik learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavits 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 the fresh stage.

¶8

This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 854 of 2023 (Satyendra Pratap Singh Versus Pioneer gold hybrid seeds pvt ltd and Another) Meerut under section- 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Meerut in view of the Summoning Order dated 24.4.2024.

¶9

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 6.12.2023 against the applicants with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability the applicants herein had drawn a cheque bearing no.359752 of Rs.1,25000/- dated 13.10.2023 which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured on 21.10.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 3.11.2023 and a complaint on 6.12.2023 and the applicants came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 24.4.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the statutory demand notice was not served upon the applicants. He has further submitted that though in the summoning order it has been asserted that the notice came to be served on 18.11.2023 but according to him the tracking report itself shows that the item was delivered on 18.11.2023 to the sender itself i.e.

¶11

NA528 No. 11197 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

the opposite party no.2 and not the applicants. He has thus submitted that there has been infraction of the provisions contained under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act.

¶14

Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the matter be remitted back to the court below to record finding regarding the service of the notice upon the applicants taking into account the tracking report. Learned AGA has adopted the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶15

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

¶16

Apparently, post dishonoured of a cheque a statutory demand notice is stated to have been issued on 3.11.2023. The question whether before recording the finding that the said notice came to be served upon the applicants on 18.11.2023 is based upon the tracking report or not still is not forthcoming. In these circumstances, the summoning order cannot be sustained particularly when overlooked the crucial aspect of the matter which is imperative in view of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act.

¶17

Accordingly the application is being decided in the following terms:-(a) summoning order dated 24.4.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 854 of 2023 by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Meerut is set aside, (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order, (c) for facilitation and early disposal the applicant shall submit the certified copy of the order passed today by 19.9.2025.

¶18

The applications stand disposed of .

¶19

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶20

September 9, 2025 piyush

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pioneer Gold Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. through Director Sri Chetan Malik and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pioneer Gold Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. through Director Sri Chetan Malik and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases