HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41205 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 5229 of 2023 (Ravindra Nath Dubey Vs. Surya Prakash Upadhyay), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Sonaha, District Basti and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti as well as order dated 10.09.2025 passed by Session Judge, Basti. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by means of the impugned order dated 17.7.2025 discharge application of the applicant has been rejected against which revision was filed and the same has also been rejected on 10.9.2025 holding that revision is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the applicant confines his submission to the order dated 17.7.2025 and submits that cheque in question was of Rs. 5,40,000/- and the date of cheque was 27.12.2023. The complaint case was to the effect that relative of the applicant has entered into a transaction with regard to sale and purchase of land, however, when the transaction could not fortify the compromise was entered on 22.12.2022. In respect of the aforesaid compromise the applicant had issued a cheque of Rs. 5,40,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hanuman Deen Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Surya Prakash Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) that as per the complainant the cheque was dishonoured and the present criminal complaint has been lodged. The applicant while referring to the compromise dated 22.12.2022 has drawn attention of this Court to the issuing date of the stamp papers dated 23.12.2022. On the aforesaid basis learned counsel for the applicant submits that compromise between the complainant and the third party has been executed in suspicious manner as the stamp papers were purchased on later date from the date of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that cheque in question was lost by the applicant which has been misused by the complainant and in this respect complaint was made to the bank as well as to the police station. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that trial court has not recorded any finding in this respect in the impugned order dated 7.7.2025. 4. It is to be seen that in the present case the dispute arises out of the complaint case where under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cheque in question which has dishonoured is of Rs. 5,40,000/-. The submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant to the veracity of the compromise dated 22.12.2022 is a question of fact which is required to be dealt with at the stage of trial. Whether the document is admissible or not is to be gone into by the trial court at the stage of trial. At this stage, under Section 528 BNSS this Court is not required to hold a mini trial. It is further to be noted that another plea has been raised by the applicant that the cheque in question was lost in respect of which complaint was made to the bank as well as to the police station. The aforesaid issue is also question of fact which is required to be decided by the trial court after the applicant leads evidence to rebut the compromise under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. 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 NA528 No. 41205 of 2025 2 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 considered. 6. 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. 7. On a query being made to learned counsel for the applicant as to how this Court under Section 528 BNSS can examine the question of fact, learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that question of fact are required to be dealt with by the trial court. It is further to be seen that the issues being raised by the applicant can always be raised before the trial court in his defence. At this stage, this Court does not deem it proper to interfere in the impugned order, more particularly, when the impugned order has recorded a finding that the issues raised are required to be dealt with after lodging of evidence by the parties. NA528 No. 41205 of 2025 3 8. The present application lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. October 28, 2025 VMA NA528 No. 41205 of 2025 4 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad