Disposed¶14

Bal Kishan v. State of U.P. and Another

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – S.138

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025NA528/47612/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 47612 of 2025, decided December 1, 2025. Bal Kishan v. State of U.P. Quashing of summoning order dated 21.08.2024 (ACJM, Kasganj) in Complaint Case No. 2253 of 2022 under Section 138 NI Act, P.S. Sahawar, District Kasganj sought on ground of limitation (notice served 1.10.2022, complaint filed 3.10.2022). Held: service of notice is a matter of evidence for the trial court; no interference at threshold; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS disposed of; no quashing of the summoning order or proceedings; liberty left to the applicant to raise the issue of service of notice before the trial court. ¶14

Bal Kishan 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. - 47612 of 2025

¶3

Bal Kishan

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Arjun Singh Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 76

¶6

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 21.08.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in Complaint Case No. 2253 of 2022 (Greesh Chandra Vs. Bal Kishan) under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, P.S. Sahawar, District Kasganj as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2253 of 2022 (Greesh Chandra Vs. Bal Kishan) under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, P.S. Sahawar, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that notice of dishonour of cheque was sent on 16.9.2022. According to learned counsel for the applicant on 1.10.2022 notice was served on the applicant and complaint was filed on 3.10.2022. It is submitted that from the date of service of notice the complaint is time barred.

¶10

On a query being made to learned counsel for the applicant that as to on what basis applicant had stated that he has received notice on 1.10.2022 when the sender as well as receiver of the notice are within the same district and it is an admitted case that notice was sent by registered post, learned counsel for the applicant could not demonstrate from the material that the notice was served on 1.10.2022.

¶11

NA528 No. 47612 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Be that as it may, the question of service of notice is a question of evidence which is required to be raised by the parties before the trial court by leading evidence. At this stage, interference in such issues where evidence form an important part for determination is not required to be considered. It will be open for the applicant to raise the aforesaid issues before the concerned court.

¶14

Accordingly, the application filed under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

¶15

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶16

December 1, 2025 VMA

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bal Kishan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Kishan 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

Similar cases

Smt Mukesh vs State of Up and Another

Lal Bahadur vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramashankar Raghuwanshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Balmukund and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Daulat Ram vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sushila vs State of U.P. and Another