Dismissed¶¶14

Dev Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2025NA528/4658/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash summoning order and complaint proceedings under Section 138 NI Act dismissed. Applicant failed to show any infirmity in summoning order except claiming innocence. Cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- issued 16.1.2024, dishonored 17.1.2024, notice refused 29.1.2024, complaint filed 17.2.2024.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; summoning order and complaint proceedings upheld ¶¶14

Why is it important?

Dev Narayan Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4658 of 2025

¶3

Dev Narayan Mishra

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Satish Kumar Shukla : Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 76

¶6

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This application U/s 528 of BNSS has filed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.2.2024 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, by means of which the applicant has wrongly been summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5807 of 2024 (Surya Prakash Tripathi Vs. Dev Narayan Mishra) under Section 138 of NI Act, P.S. Panki, Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a cheque stood issued on 16.1.2024 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which stood dishonored on 17.1.2024, a legal notice was issued on 29.1.2024 which was refused to be received and thereafter complaint stood preferred on 17.2.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent.

¶10

Learned AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that there has been compliance of the provisions of Section 138 and Section 142 of the NI Act.

¶11

On a pointed query being raised to the applicant as to whether there is any infirmity in the summoning order he could not point out anything except the fact that the applicant is innocent.

¶12

NA528 No. 4658 of 2025

¶13

¶14