HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40888 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 17.09.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1 Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1026 of 2024 (Nishant Kumar Vs. Jitendra Kumar) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Meerut, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that perusal of the complaint would go to show that details of the financial liabilities against which the disputed cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- was issued has not been stated in the complaint. The cheque in question was lost and as a result of the same complaint was made to the bank to stop payment and police report was also made. The information for stopping payment was given to the bank on 16.8.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that cheque in question has been lost in the transit and there was no transaction between the parties. 4. The plea raised by the applicant in the present application are in the nature of defence of applicant-accused. The defence version of events would require a mini-trial. The defense evidence and arguments are meant to be presented and proved during the trial. It is now fairly settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. The nature of plea raised by the Applicant are essentially questions of fact and required appreciation of facts, which this court does not consider necessary to be considered at this stage as these facts are required to be proved by the applicant-accused before the trial court prior to the same being Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jitender Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) considered. 5. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that until the contrary is proved, the presumptions shall be made (a) of consideration:- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date:-that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date. Further, under section 139 of the said Act, it is provided that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. The Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S. Borcar and another - 2025 INSC 1158 has held that once the execution of cheque is admitted, the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act that the holder of cheque received the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises against the accused. The presumption raised by law is rebuttable at the trial. At this stage this Court cannot override the statutory presumption. 6. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. However, liberty stands reserved in favour of applicant to raise his defence before Trial Court. October 27, 2025 VMA NA528 No. 40888 of 2025 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad