Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6249 Court No. - 30 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 859 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Chand Alias Chand Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad Khan,Mohd. Tariq Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of impugned summoning order dated 10.06.2024 issued by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.01, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.18916 of 2022 (Rahul Rathour Vs. M/s Afreen Embroidary Works Propritor Mohd. Chand), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow. As per the prosecution case, the applicants issued cheque No.899297 dated 01.01.2022 to the complainant which got bounced when presented in Bank due to stop payment. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants did not receive any notice regarding bouncing of cheques. He further submits that the applicants have not given any cheque to the opposite party No.2. He further submits that infact three signed cheques bearing No.899297, 899298 and 899299 of Indian Overseas Bank were lost on 12.07.2021, information thereof was given by the applicants on the online portal of U.P. Police so that payment of these cheques may be stopped. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that even the applicants have lodged a Criminal Complaint No.86760/2022 against the opposite party No.2 for misusing the cheque of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.01, Lucknow is totally illegal, perverse and without application of judicial mind as the same is passed without giving weight to the evidence on record as well as without considering the missing report of the cheques as well as without considering the complaint against the opposite Party No.2 lodged by the applicants. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the impugned order has correctly been passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.01, Lucknow after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, which is totally legal and does not require any interference by this Court. From the perusal of materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants. At the stage of issuing process, the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 and (v) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench