Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance and summoning order should be quashed on the applicant's plea that the statutory notice was not validly served on him, having been sent to his ancestral home address while he resided at Kanpur Nagar? +2 more

Court's answer

The question of the address of the applicant is a question of fact required to be looked into by the trial court, being in the nature of defence.

Ratio / Principle

On the plea that the complaint is barred, the Court declined to record any finding at this stage since the complaint was filed after 15 days from the date of notice; the issue was left open to be decided by the trial court at the proper stage.

Key takeaways

While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case where a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry into the merits of the accusations; the pleas raised are essentially questions of fact to be proved before the trial court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of cognizance and summoning order dated 23.11.2020 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1241 of 2020 (Ram Swaroop Vs. Gayan Singh) under Section 138 N.I. Act — Held: (i) the plea that the statutory notice was sent to the applicant's ancestral home address while he resided at Kanpur Nagar, resulting in non-service, is a question of fact in the nature of defence, to be looked into by the trial court; (ii) on the contention that the complaint was barred, since the complaint was filed after 15 days from the date of notice, the Court declined to record any finding and left the issue open for the trial court to decide at the proper stage; (iii) in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not proper for the Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry into the merits of the accusations, such pleas requiring a mini-trial before the trial court — Application dismissed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40790 of 2025

Gyan Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Virendra Pratap Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 76

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

The present application has been filed for quashing the cognizance and summoning order dated 23.11.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1241 of 2020 (Ram Swaroop Vs. Gayan Singh) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun,

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that as per complaint, demand notice was sent after dishonour of the cheque by the complainant and returned back. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was residing at Kanpur Nagar and notice was sent at ancestral home address, as a result of same, notice was not served. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on 17.10.2020 notice has been returned back. Notice was sent on 24.9.2020 and complaint has been filed on 20.10.2020. Notice was returned back to complaint on 17.10.2020.

It is to be seen that insofar as question of address of applicant is concerned, the same is a question of fact, which is required to be looked into by the trial court, as the same is in the nature of defence.

Insofar as argument of learned counsel for applicant that complaint being barred, it is to be seen that as per complaint, notice was sent on 24.9.2020. The same was returned back on 17.10.2020 and thereafter complaint was filed on 20.10.2020. The complaint has been filed after 15 days from the date of notice and as such, at this stage, it would not be proper for this Court to record any finding. The said issue is left open for being decided by the

NA528 No. 40790 of 2025

2

trial court at the proper stage.

The plea raised by the applicant(s) in the present application are in the nature of defence of applicant-accused. The defence version of events would require a mini-trial. The defense evidence and arguments are meant to be presented and proved during the trial. It is now fairly settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the this Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. The nature of plea(s) raised by the Applicant(s) are essentially questions of fact and required appreciation of facts, which this court does not consider necessary to be considered at this stage as these facts are required to be proved by the applicant-accused before the trial court prior to the same being considered.

In view of aforesaid, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.

October 17, 2025

D. Tamang

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad