HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41553 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The application has been filed for quashing /setting aside the impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 27.02.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 2394 of 2019 (Akancha Katiyar Vs. Ankit Gangwar) whereby applicant has been submmoned for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2394 of 2019 (Akancha Katiyar Vs. Ankit Gangwar) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station - Bilhaur, District Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the cheque for a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- was of date 8.10.2019 and was dishonoured on 15.10.2019. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the complaint, it has been stated that cheque in question was given in consideration of loan granted by the complainant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that no loan was ever taken by applicant. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Complainant has also lodged another Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ankit Gangwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.5.2024 in respect of another loan. Learned counsel for applicant submits that once previous loan has not been given then how the second complaint would maintainable and as such, proceedings are abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that complaint has been filed beyond 45 days. 4. It is to be seen that in the present case, summoning order was issued on 27.2.2020. The order sheet of the trial court is not being brought before this Court. 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 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 this 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. The Supreme NA528 No. 41553 of 2025 2 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. 7. In view of aforesaid, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. October 29, 2025 D. Tamang NA528 No. 41553 of 2025 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad