Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22968 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3444 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Krishna Srivastava,Nishant Singh,Surendra Kumar Tripathi,Sweta Swarankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State while vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of private respondent by Sri Purshottam Chaurasia, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS (earlier 482 Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has challenged the summoning order dated 25.9.2024 issued in exercise of the powers under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the private respondent had filed a compliant under Section 138 N.I.Act stating that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the complainant and when the complainant requested to return the said amount he sought time on one pretext or the other and subsequently issued a cheque bearing No.129652, dated 15.3.2024 for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs drawn on IDBI bank, Ghazaiabad. When the said cheuqe was presented it was returned back with the remark 'insufficient funds' vide return memo dated 18.3.2024 and issued a legal notice calling for repayment of the loan but the same was not repaid and consequently the said complaint was filed. 4. In support of the complaint the complainant had also tendered his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and considering the aforesaid facts the trial court has issued summons to the petitioner on 25.9.2024. 5. The petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that 8 years prior i.e. on 7.10.2016 the petitioner had lodged complaint with the police to the effect that cheques have been lost and intimation was also given to the bank not to clear the said cheques. In light of the fact that the said cheques have been lost he submits that these are the same cheques which has been provided by the private respondent to the bank and accordingly, the complainant itself has filed fictitious and fabricated complaint on which no action deserves to be taken by the trial court and accordingly has assailed the summoning order. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the aspect of giving intimation to the police on a simple piece of paper and also the intimation to the bank are subject matter of evidence which can be placed before the trial court and it is only after after adequate evidence can be adduced by the petitioner stating that he had lodged the complaint before the police with regard to missing of the cheques and also intimated to the bank then this fact can be considered by the trial court 7. Considering the entire facts, it is noticed that the only ground raised by the petitioner for assailing the summoning order is the fact that that in 2016 he had intimated the police with regard to missing of the cheques and also to the bank. It is noticed that even assuming that the petitioner was correct and that he had intimated the bank on 17.10.2016 with regard to missing of the cheques we see no reasons as to why the said cheque was dishonored giving the reason 'insufficient funds'. This aspect of the matter will have to be considered by the trial court for which evidence will have to be led by the petitioner and merely by annexing photocopies of the applications provided by the petitioner to the police and also to the bank cannot substantially prove all the grounds raised by him.These are the aspects which can be adequately raised by him to the satisfaction of the trial court. The defence raised by the petitioner cannot be considered before this Court where the summoning order has been assailed. At the stage of issuing summons the Magistrate is duty bound to look into the material available on records which is in the form of complaint, statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. etc. 8. Order issuing summons cannot be interfered with considering the defence of the accused. Accordingly, we find that all the grounds raised by the petitioner are, in fact, the defence which can adequately be considered at the appropriate stage. We do not find any any reason to interfere in the order in as much as the trial court has considered all the material available on record while issuing summoning order in which all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act were complied. 9. In light of the above, 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