HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37594 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 02.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Farrukhabad, in Complaint Case No.1368 of 2024, (Kamlesh Yadav Versus Verendra Shukla) Under Section 138 Ν.Ι. Act, Police Station Qadri Gate, District Farrukhabad and also quash the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2025 (Virendra Shukla Urf pappu Versus State of U.P. and another). 3. The case of the applicant is that on 17.1.2024 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 the liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no.100870 of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 3.10 .2023 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 6.10 .2023 followed by representation on the assurance of the applicant on 12.12.2023 when the cheque was again dishonoured a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 15.12.2023, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 17.1.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned on 22.5.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained that there is no legal debt or liability so as to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Mangal Tiwari, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Verendra Shukla Alias Pappu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) invoke the provisions contained under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, for the simple reason even prior to the lodging of the complaint on 17.1.2024 the applicant herein had lodged the first information report on 5.1.2024 against the opposite party no.2 on their faction under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506 IPC with an allegation that the applicant intended to purchase a piece of land from the opposite party no.2 and had given certain cheques and the said cheque was misutilzed particularly when the title of the land was under cloud thus the said cheque instead of being returned back was presented in the bank and stood dishonoured. Submission is that the present proceedings is nothing but a counterblast and a retaliation. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, with respect to dishonour of the cheque a complaint stood lodged, the statutory demand notice came to be issued and a complaint stood lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned against which a revision came to be preferred which has been rejected. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there has been any infraction/procedural infirmity with regard to the provisions contained under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act the answer is negative. 8. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the since a first information report stood lodged prior to the lodging of the present complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the said cheque came to be misutilzed while presenting in the bank and getting it dishonoured they are the subject matter of defences consideration whereof would be required during the trial commences where a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 9. Moreover the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 10. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the proceedings before the court NA528 No. 37594 of 2025 2 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. September 25, 2025 piyush NA528 No. 37594 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad