HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38163 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 05.12.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 26, Azamgarh, consequential orders dated 11.08.2025 i.e. NBW and 82 Cr.P.C. as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3538 of 2024, in Complaint Case No. 1197 of 2022 ( Umashankar Yadav Vs. Sarwan Ram), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Azamgarh. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn two cheques bearing number "550226" and "550227" of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.70,000/-, which on presentation in the bank on 29.10.2021 came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice dated 12.11.2021 and a complaint and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 05.12.2022 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained, particularly when both the cheques stood stolen by the O.P. No.2 and in this regard, the applicant had made a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Azamgarh on 25.07.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddharth Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shri Sarwan Ram Alias Shravan Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) contained under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of the cheques, a statutory demand notice came to be issued and applicant was summoned. The question whether the said cheques were stolen or misutilized is a subject matter of trial, as this Court at the stage of summoning is not required to delve into the said aspect. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is there. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the proceedings before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. October 6, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 38163 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad