Vipul Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41130 of 2025

¶3

Vipul Shukla

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashish Kumar Gupta, Durga Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 76

¶6

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 19.09.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.1942 of 2024 (Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Proprietor R.B.S. Construction Gyanpur Bhadohi Versus TTAGO Green Energy Private Limited Gomtinagar Through Manager Akash Kumar and others), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Manduadeeh, District-Varanasi pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Varanasi.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that as per allegation in the complaint, it is alleged that two cheques dated 16.12.2023 of Rs.10,00,000/and dated 6.12.2023 of Rs.15,00,000/- were issued in pursuance to goods supplied by the complainant. Cheques were issued by applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that cheques in question were dishonoured on 7.3.2024, however, legal notice was given on 20.6.2024. Learned counsel for applicant submits that as per provision of Section 138 proviso (b), notice is required to be served within 30 days from the date of receipt of information by the complainant from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. Learned counsel for applicant submits that cheques were dishonoured on 7.3.2024 and on 22.5.2024 complainant had preferred an application before the Manager of the bank for return of the cheque, which is at page 41 of the paper book. Learned counsel for applicant submits that thereafter demand notice was given on 20.6.2024. As per document at page 41 of the paper book, cheque in question were handed over back by the bank to the complaint on 3.6.2024. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that demand notice has not been sent in accordance with Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶10

It is to be seen that in the present case as per complainant, cheques were dishonoured on 7.3.2024, however, cheques have not been returned back to

¶11

NA528 No. 41130 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

the complainant with the information that cheques have been dishnoured. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the document at page 41 of the paper book, which is an application of the complainant to the bank to return the cheques, which have been dishonoured. Learned counsel for applicant relying on the aforesaid application submits that complainant had knowledge with regard to dishonour of cheque on 7.3.2024 itself.

¶14

Perusal of application dated 22.5.2024 would go to show that on 7.3.2024 cheques were dishonoured, which have not been returned by the bank to the complainant. It is a case of learned counsel for applicant that once cheque was dishonoured on 7.3.2024 then notice through sms would be served on the complainant and as such complainant had knowledge with regard to dishonour of cheque. It is to be seen that in the present case, it has not been shown by learned counsel for applicant as to date when return memo was served by the bank on the complainant. The argument with regard to sending information regarding dishonour of cheque through sms is concerned neither there is any material before this Court to demonstrate the same and even otherwise unless the cheque return memo received by the complainant from the bank, proceedings cannot go on. Return memo is information with regard to dishonour of cheque. If the complainant had knowledge with regard to dishonour of cheque on 7.3.2024, the same is question of evidence, which is to be led by applicant before the trial court. At this stage, this Court cannot assume the defence raised by the applicant.

¶15

Accordingly the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.

¶16

October 27, 2025 D. Tamang

¶17

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶18

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

Vipul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Srikant Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Surajbhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitender Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Deepti Varn Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bharat vs State of U.P. and Another