M/S Atharv Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs State of U.P… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

M/S Atharv Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs State of U.P… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application entertained at interim stage: notice issued to opposite party no.2 (returnable at an early date), counter affidavits permitted within four weeks, rejoinder affidavits within two weeks thereafter, listing immediately after six weeks, and an interim direction that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant; no final adjudication on quashal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 05.07.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.- 2602 of 2024 (Hanif Vs. Arthav Insfrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-4, Ghaziabad, should be quashed pursuant to this application under Section 528 BNSS. +3 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances urged by the parties, the Court held that a prima facie case is made out.

Ratio / Principle

Notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date; opposite parties were allowed four weeks to file counter affidavits and a further two weeks thereafter for rejoinder affidavits, with the matter to be listed immediately after six weeks.

Key takeaways

In the meantime, i.e., until further orders in the application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 77), Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J., single Bench — Application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. No. 29075 of 2025 filed by M/S Atharv Infrastructure Private Ltd. seeking quashal of the summoning order dated 05.07.2024 in Complaint Case No.- 2602 of 2024 (Hanif Vs. Arthav Insfrastructure Pvt. Ltd.), a Section 138 N.I. Act prosecution (P.S. Wave City, District Ghaziabad) pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-4, Ghaziabad. Counsel for the applicant contended that (i) the complaint nowhere states that Director Ankit Tyagi was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, reliance being placed on Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.12390 of 2022 (Susela Padmavathy Amma vs M/S. Bharti Airtel Limited) [2024 (260) AIC 197]; (ii) the dishonoured cheque was not given for discharge of any debt; and (iii) the notice contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act had not been received. The learned A.G.A. submitted that the matter involves a commercial/civil dispute and may be referred for mediation. Finding a prima facie case, the Court issued notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date, allowed counter affidavits within four weeks and rejoinder affidavits within two weeks thereafter, directed listing immediately after six weeks, and ordered in the meantime that no coercive action be taken against the applicant. Order dated 8.8.2025.

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29075 of 2025

Applicant :- M/S Atharv Infrastructure Private Ltd Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mandvi Tripathi,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Mandvi Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application u/s 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.07.2024 in Complaint Case No.- 2602 of 2024 (Hanif Vs. Arthav Insfrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S- Wave City, District- Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge 9J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-4, Ghaziabad.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant opposite party no.2 has not stated in the complaint that Ankit Tyagi, Director of the company M/s Atharv Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.12390 of 2022 (Susela Padmavathy Amma vs M/S. Bharti Airtel Limited) [2024 (260) AIC 197] . Learned counsel further submits that the cheque which was dishonoured was not given for discharge of any debt. He further submits that no notice as contemplated under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been received by the applicant.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that the matter may be referred for mediation as the matter involves some commercial/civil dispute.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, a prima facie case is made out.

Let notice be issued to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List immediately after six weeks.

In the meantime no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Virendra

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