HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37701 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, 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 entire proceeding as well as impugned order dated 17.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.33, Shahjahanpur in Complaint case no.1488 of 2022 (Aniket Saxena Versus Suraj Saxena) and order dated 07.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.33, Shahjahanpur in Complaint case no.351 of 2021 (Aniket Saxena Versus Suraj Saxena), under sections 138 Ν.Ι. Act., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.33, Shahjahanpur. 3. The case of the applicant is that on 11.6.2021 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 of Rs.3,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 11.05.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 22.5.2021 and a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the applicant came to be summoned on 17.10.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason and there is no legal debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions contained under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. that the applicant does not pay the said amount. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suraj Saxena .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn which has been dishonoured. 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. 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. 37701 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad