Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1323/2026 of NEERAJ KUMAR PANDEY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 15 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No.1323 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA for the
SL.
No
Date
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
C528 No.1323 of 2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant application has been moved under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by the present applicant challenging the proceeding of Complaint Case No.10 of 2026 (New No.18 of 2026) titled as “Vinod Singh Matwal vs. Neeraj Kumar Pandey”, which is a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. On the previous date, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was not given any pre-cognizance hearing in terms of Section 223 of BNSS, 2023.
5. The State Counsel on that day was directed to assist this Court whether Section 223 of BNSS, 2023 is applicable to a proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act.
6. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA placed before this Court the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore Borcar and another, (2025) SCC OnLine (SC) 2069, wherein, it has been held that there is no requirement to issue the summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS, 2023 at the pre-cognizance stage.
7. Therefore, in view of this the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant should be given a pre-cognizance hearing is not accepted and outrightly rejected.
8. On the other ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no feduciary relations in between the applicant and the complainant, on this plea, the proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, such a plea can be taken during the course of trial.
9. In such view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this petition, the same is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
15.06.2026
Ravi