Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50962 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40931 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradip Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Pradip Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State-opposite party. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2472 of 2022 (Aditya Kumar Vs. Amit Kumar Gupta), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Bidhuna, District Auraiya, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ J.M. Bidhuna, Auraiya. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 dated 22.12.2022 would make it more than evident that the allegation is that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- stood drawn by the M/s. Universal Agencies dated 28.11.2022 in favour of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been summoned on 19.05.2023, under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant on the strength of the documents which have been annexed at Annexure-3 at page 24 of the paperbook, reference has been made in para 10 of the application has sought to submit that the passbook of the bank account itself shows that the applicant names is Amit Gupta but as per the IT PAN Card and the Aadhar Card is at page 16 of the paperbook, he is Amit Gupta son of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta residence of 62/193 Harbansh Mohal, Kanpur, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, 208001. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the complaint which is at page 19 of the paper book, the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 is Amit Kumar Gupta S/o Ram Prasad Gupta. He submits that applicant is not the person who has issued the cheque, as due to mistaken identity, the summons have been issued to him and he is being harassed. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Ritesh Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another; Application U/S 482 No. 10159 of 2024 so as to buttress his submission that the trial court be directed to verify the cheque from the concerned bank. 4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that in case, the applicant claims himself to be not the accused who has issued the said cheque, then it is always open for him to approach the Court and make a request for verification of the Bank account or the cheque so as to determine as to whether the applicant is accused or not. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, the application stands disposed of requiring the applicant to appear before the court below by 25.04.2025 and to move an appropriate application for enlargement on bail and thereafter show bona fide while showing the documents in support of his claim that he is not the accused who had issued the cheque. 6. Needless to point out that the claim of the applicant is to be decided as per the provisions of Cr.P.C./ BNSS, 2023 as well as N.I. Act. 7. Nevertheless, post moving of the application seeking bail, the same shall be considered in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 Order Date :- 8.4.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad