Allahabad High Court
Smt. Lata Goel vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185716
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33766 of 2025
Smt. Lata Goel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ankit Kumar Singh, Ashish Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.19024 of 2024, Yogesh Jindal Vs. Smt. Lata Goel, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut as well as summoning order dated 11.2.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Meerut.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant submits that without complying with the provisions of Section 223 BNSS and without issuing notice to the applicant-accused, the summoning order has been passed.
4. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon the judgment dated 25.9.2025 passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another, Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010 to submit that the provisions of Section 223 BNSS is not applicable in respect of proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. It is to be seen that the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari (supra) has observed as under:-
"E. Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490 has taken the view that since NI Act is a special enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the accused before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of BNSS) of complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the requirement of summoning the applicant-accused at the stage of summoning under Section 223 BNSS is not required under the N.I. Act as such the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant sans merit and is rejected.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant that ends of justice would be served if the applicant is permitted to appear before the court concerned through counsel in terms of Section 228 BNSS.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant undertakes to ensure presence of her Counsel/Pleader before the court concerned on each date fixed. It is further submitted that the applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and will participate in the trial court proceedings through the Advocate/Pleader. It is further submitted that the applicant will have no objection in the event the evidence is recorded in the presence of Advocate/Pleader of the applicant.
9. The applicant is subjected to prosecution for the following offence:-
(i) The applicant is subjected to an offence under section 138 Neotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The punishment provided under the aforesaid Section is for imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.
10. The present case arises out of dishonour of cheque. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has any previous criminal history or the applicant may tamper with the evidence. It has also not been suggested on behalf of opposite party that the applicant would flee away from justice or that applicant has not co-operated at the time of investigation.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 INSC 363 in respect of granting exemption from personal appearance has held as under in paragraph 47:-
"Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code [Section 205 of the Code. also see Section 317 of the Code] should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167, held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption. [see also, Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, (2020) 12 SCC 695]. Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require. In such cases, the criminal court must act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair, is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law."
12. Considering the nature of controversy, it is directed that in case application in terms of Section 228 of BNSS is filed by applicant, the court concerned to dispense with the personal attendance of applicant and the applicant be permitted to appear through pleader/counsel subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant shall appear before the court concerned through counsel on the next date or within 20 days from today whichever is earlier. In default, the present order and direction shall automatically stand vacated.
(b) The applicant shall execute bond with or without sureties for her appearance to the satisfaction of the court concerned in terms of Section 91 of BNSS. In default, the present order and direction shall automatically stand vacated.
(c) The applicant shall on affidavit submit her permanent address as well as the current address of residence before the court concerned within 15 days from today. The applicant shall also submit before the court concerned the contact number (if any) of the applicant as well as the e-mail address (if any) of the applicant.
(d) The applicant shall also submit an affidavit before the court concerned that she would not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses during the pendency of the trial.
(e) In the event, the applicant changes address of residence, she shall submit an affidavit with regard to change of address within two weeks before the court concerned.
(f) It shall be the duty of the applicant to ensure that the pleader/counsel engaged by the applicant is present before the court concerned on the date fixed without exemption. The failure on the part of the pleader/counsel to appear before the court concerned when the matter is taken up will be construed as absence of applicant and the court concerned, thereafter, would be at liberty to take such measures for enforcing the personal attendance/personal appearance of the applicant as may be required under law.
(g) The applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the court concerned. In the event, the counsel/pleader engaged by applicant is not available, it shall be the duty of the applicant to engage another counsel and ensure that the newly engaged counsel is present before the court concerned for progress of the case.
(h) The court concerned at any stage of proceeding can direct personal attendance of applicant by order in writing and that if necessary enforce such attendance in accordance with law. It is further provided, where court concerned issues any summon or warrant on account of absence of counsel for applicant before the court concerned or in respect of any other matter, the police authorities shall be obliged under law to execute the summon or warrant and ensure the attendance of the applicant before the court concerned.
(i) Whenever the court concerned directs personal attendance of the applicant before the court concerned, it shall be duty of the applicant to remain present before the court concerned and to ensure that the trial court proceedings are not adjourned on account of absence of the applicant. It shall be the duty of the counsel engaged by applicant to inform the applicant with regard to the progress of the case and, in the event, the personal attendance of the applicant is required. The non-communication by the counsel for the applicant about the progress of the case or the order of the court concerned for personal attendance of the applicant shall not be permissible as defence on behalf of the applicant.
(j) The prosecution/police authority/complainant shall ensure that the witnesses are produced before the court concerned without delay as and when directed by the court concerned.
(k) The court concerned shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.
(l) The court concerned will be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law where the applicant is found to be tampering with the evidence or delaying the trial without any justification.
13. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
October 16, 2025
Bhaskar
