Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70243 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5904 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ulajhan Singh Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 10.04.2024 as well as the proceeding of complaint case no. 3324 of 2024 (Bhagat Singh vs. Vinay Kumar Tiwari) under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending in the court of ACJM, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 22.02.2024 a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant under section 138 of N.I. Act relatable to the commission of the offence whereby a cheque of Rs. 45,000/- bearing no. 563147 was drawn by the applicant on 30.11.2023 which on presentation in the Bank on 01.02.2024 was dishonoured on 02.01.2024 with the remarks exceeds arrangement. Thereafter a statutory notice is stated to have been issued on 10.01.2024 as per the complaint stood served upon the applicant on 19.01.2024 and the complaint was preferred on 22.02.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that summons under Section138 of N.I. Act was issued on 10.06.2024. It is further submitted that the cheque which the applicant had drawn was relatable to some interior work but the opposite party no.2 has misused and misutilised the same and there is no question of any enforceable of debt or liability, so as to attract the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn, then the presumption under section 139 would always be there. 6. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for consideration is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant which was dishonoured. The question as to whether for which purpose the cheque was drawn and for which purpose it was utilised or misutilised is a question of trial which cannot be gone into. Moreover, presumption under section 138 of N.I. Act is always there in favour of the holder. In absence of pointing out any jurisdictional error, this Court is not require to throttle the investigation. Accordingly, the present application is hereby rejected. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail. 8. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad