HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37560 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Kusum Mishra learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.A. Maurya learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 6, Mirzapur in complaint case no. 552 of 2024 (Amit Seth Vs Anavar Ali), under section 138 N.I. Act, related to police station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 25.9.2024 by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that the O.P. No.2 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no. 000020 of Rs.2,50,000/- which on presentation in the bank on 30.7.2024 and came to be dishonoured on 31.7.2024 and on assurance again represented on 13.8.2024 which was dishonoured on 14.8.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 27.8.2024 served upon applicant on 28.8.2024 and a complaint was filed on 25.9.2024 and summoning order dated 11.11.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that there happened to be certain business relationship to the opposite party no.2 and however the applicant had made a part payment of the said amount as reference has been made certain UPI payment. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kusum Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anavar Ali .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever arguments has been made, they are matter of defence and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, with respect to dishonour of a cheque and statutory demand notice came to be issued which is stated to have been served. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there has been any technical infraction/procedural infirmity with regard to the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act the answer is negative. 8. In any view of the matter, whether the applicant is entitled to pay the said amount or not whether the payments have been made or subject matter of trial as they are the matter of defences. 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 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. 37560 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad