HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41743 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 the summoning order dated 21.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.976 of 2024 (Omprakash Nirvan Vs. Rishi Sharma) under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S.-Nandgram, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.R.D.N.)/ Court No.6, Ghaziabad. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there was an agreement for purchase of property with the complainant. Complainant thereafter has refused to purchase the property as a result of same, cheque in question was issued for return of the amount subject to the condition that when the property in question is sold thereafter cheque could be sent for clearing. Learned counsel for applicant submits that property till date could not be sold and the complainant has submitted cheque for clearing on premature date. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rishi Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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. In view of aforesaid, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. October 29, 2025 D. Tamang NA528 No. 41743 of 2025 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad