Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27617 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3741 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Indu Bala Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prays for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 22049 of 2023, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station - Rampur Mathura, District - Sitapur pending before Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -Ist, Sitapur as well as summoning order dated 18.03.2024, passed in the aforesaid case. 4. As per complaint dated 03.07.2023, it has been alleged by the complainant that the applicant has issued Cheque No. 012218, dated 18.03.2023, amounting to Rs.6,25,000/- , drawn on Union Bank of India, Branch Dewasharif, Barabanki and when the same was presented to the Bank, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Despite legal notice having been sent to the applicant, the amount was not paid and consequently, present complaint was filed. After recording the aforesaid facts, the trial Court issued summons to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the impugned summoning order on various grounds including the fact that there is variance in the Cheque number and amount as well as the contents of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as annexed by the applicant in the present case, the complaint case has been registered as Complaint Case No. 22049 of 2023 and accordingly, it cannot be said that the said statement has been made in the present complaint. 6. Without entering into the controversy, all the grounds raised by the applicant can be adequately raised by him before the trial Court and specific statutory provisions exist for challenging the claim of the opposite party no. 2. All the grounds raised by the applicant are required to be duly considered by the trial Court before passing any order against the applicant. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds that appropriately all the issues raised by the applicant are infact defense of applicant to the claim of opposite party no. 2 and are factual in nature and accordingly, the applicant has to raise his defense before the trial Court, duly backed up by evidence to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interfering at this stage, apart from the above, the trial Court has passed the impugned order after noticing the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, primafacie this Court do not find any good ground for interfering in the matter at this stage. 9. With aforesaid observations, the present application being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench