HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37442 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, 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 07.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.1, Agra as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.6496 of 2024(Dilip Kumar Baghel Vs. Prashant Kumar), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 12.04.2024 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 a cheque bearing number "002316" dated 05.03.2024 for an amount Rs.9,50,000/-, which on presentation in the bank on 07.03.2024 came to be dishonoured on 08.03.2024 with the remark "payment stopped by drawer" followed by a statutory demand notice dated 22.03.2024, which was served upon the applicant on 23.03.2024 and a complaint on 12.04.2024 and thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned on 07.06.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the applicant has already made partial payment of Rs.2,90,000/- and in this regard he seeks to rely upon certain UPI payments. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once part payments have already been made, then in view of the provisions contained under Section 56 of the N.I. Act, the total amount as reflected in the cheque is not the same amount on maturity, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prashant Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) particularly when part payments have been made. 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, post-dishonur of the cheque, and dishonouring of Rs.9,50,000/-, the 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 as to whether there is any procedural infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act, the answer is in negative. The only thrust of submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that certain payments to the tune of Rs. 2,90,000/- has been made. In the opinion of the Court there is nothing on record except UPI receipts. This Court at this stage in view of the documents which have been annexed cannot record a conclusive finding that the said amount has been paid with respect to the said transaction, as the same would need leading of evidence. 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. September 25, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 37442 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad