Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62788 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41109 of 2024 Applicant :- Fida Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ekansh Varma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri J.N. Shukla (A/J 0012/2012) holding brief of Sri Ekansh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, leanred State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated-05-07-2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hapur as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no.5466 of 2022 Vijay Pal Singh versus Fida Hussain, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Pilkhuwa, District-Hapur, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Hapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with relation to an agreement so entered into between the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant, a certain piece of land was to be transferred in favour of the applicant by the opposite party no. 2, the applicant is stated to have been drawn two cheques of an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- each, however, the said cheques at that point of time was not encashed by the opposite party no. 2 but he approached the applicant and demanded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000-/ for immediate purposes. The applicant claims to have tendered Rs. 5,00,000/- and while inviting attention towards page 45 of the paper book, it is contended that the same stood signed in a paper also. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that misusing the said two cheques, the same was presented in the bank on 24.02.2022 which stood dishonored and the other cheque on 07.03.2022 which stood dishonored on 08.03.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even prior to it on 28.02.2022, a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. being under Sections 386, 420, 504, 506 IPC was lodged and summoning order was issued on 06.12.2022 under Section 323. Learned counsel for the applicant, thus, submits that there is no illegally enforceable debt so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised they are basically as a matter of defence, which cannot be gone into the present proceedings. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. This Court is mindful of the fact that to here two cheques have been stated to have been issued, which have been dishonored. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is against the applicant. Furthermore, so far as the contention so sought to be raised that the said cheques have been misused is concerned, the same is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into particularly when there is nothing on record to even otherwise substantiate the claim of the applicant. 6. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad