Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Yogesh Dutta Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pushpendra Singh Jadaun, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1387 of 2022 (Satish Kuar Pandey vs. Saksena Lal), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Duddhi, district-Sonebhadra, as well as summoning order dated 7.8.2023.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that while passing the impugned summoning order the learned Magistrate has not recorded the satisfaction of the whether prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in (Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. and another) in SLP (Crl.) 4415 of 2023. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the complaint, date of service on mandatory notice is not mentioned.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have stated that while issuing summoning order under Negotiable Instruments Act details reasons for satisfaction of prima-facie is not required. The test for making out the prima facie case under N.I. Act is different from the other offences. They further submit that there is no requirement of law for mentioning the date of service upon the drawer of the cheque in the complaint itself.

5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that while passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has discussed the detailed cheque as well as bouncing of the same and also the date of notice. Therefore, further detail is not required to be mentioned by learned Magistrate as so the cheque has been bounced and payment was not made within 15 days is sufficient for issuing process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. So far as the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned that there is no dispute that Magistrate is required to record the satisfaction that he has satisfied from the perusal of the record, the case is made out but Hon'ble Apex Court after perusal of the record came to the conclusion that no case is made out even then the Magistrate has summoned the accused, therefore, that case cannot help the applicant in the present case.

6. From the perusal of the record, the prima face case is made out against the applicant. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the date of service should be mentioned in the complaint itself it is also misconceived because Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court observed that the date of service of notice is not required to be mentioned in the complaint and if the date of service is not mentioned then the court can presume the reasonable time for service of notice upon the drawer of the cheque as per section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clause Act, in view of the above, no case for quashing the summoning order is made out therefore the present application is dismissed.