Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22941 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3442 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Metro Ply And Hardware, Thru. Its Prop. Anwar Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Usman Ghani Khan,Samreen Irfan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Usman Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. By means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 of BNSS) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.10.2024 passed by Additional Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow in proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in complaint case No.43225 of 2024. 3. It has been submitted that the private respondents had moved a complaint under Section 138 of N. I. Act stating that the complainant had advanced Rs.44 lakhs to the petitioner as a loan against which Rs.10 lakhs was disbursed to the petitioner on 12.11.2021 and the remaining amount was disbursed on various dates. 4. The petitioner to repay the said amount had given two cheques amounting to Rs.22 lakhs each on 18.3.2024 which on presentation to the Bank of Baroda were dishonored and returned with the remark 'insufficient funds' and despite giving a legal notice payment of the said amount was not made by the petitioner and consequently submits that all the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 138 N.I.Act were made out and the said complaint was filed. 5. Trial court duly considered the aforesaid facts and issued summons to the petitioner on 1.10.2024 which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Rs.7 lakhs has admittedly been returned by the petitioner and the trial court taking the said fact into account should not have entertained the said complaint and should have rejected the same. 7. No other ground was urged assailing the said order. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. He submits that all the ingredients of Section 138 of N. I. Act were duly made out in the application and eve if the statement made under Section 200 Cr.P.C.is accepted it is noticed that out of Rs.44 lakhs only Rs.7 lakhs have been refunded and Rs.34 lakhs still remains outstanding which has not been refunded back to the complainant and accordingly, there is no valid ground in assailing the summoning order and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 9. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records. 10. It is noticed that there is allegation that Rs.44 lakhs had been loaned to the petitioner by the complainant and to return the said loan two cheques were given by the petitioner on 18.3.2024 drawn on HDFC bank. When the said cheques were presented the same were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite the legal notice having been given to the petitioner the amount was not repaid and consequently complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed. Even if we accept the contention that only Rs.7 lakhs have been refunded we see no reason as to why the proceedings can be terminated in as much as the petitioner is liable to refund the entire amount as mentioned in the cheque which admittedly has not been paid to the complainant till date. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any reason for interference. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench