Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69165 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4959 of 2025 Applicant :- Veer Singh Alias Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh (AOR No.A/S-1898/2023), holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sandeep Srivastava, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.915 of 2013 (M/s Versha Iron and Paints Store Vs. Veer Singh @ Bablu), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Jalaun, District Jalaun pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 25.9.2023 against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to supply of certain articles an amount of Rs.8,10,000/- stood due and payable by the applicant to the opposite party no.2 and he tendered a cheque bearing no.001081 on 27.7.2013 of an amount of Rs.8,10,000/- which was presented in bank on 29.7.2013 and was dishonoured on 12.8.2013, a statutory notice was sent on 9.9.2013 and since the payments were not made, the complaint was filed. He has further submitted that even in the statements under Sections 200 & 202 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecution has miserably failed to show any linkage with regard to the supply of certain materials which entailed drawing of the cheque. He has also submitted that the burden is firstly upon the prosecution to prove its case and thereafter its stands shifted upon the accused, however, in the present case there is nothing on record to substantiate that the burden has been discharged by the prosecution and thus there is no question of shifting of the onus. He has next submitted that there is no documentary record showing any such transaction. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the application while contending that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there in favour of the holder. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, the complaint alleges that a cheque of an amount of Rs.8,10,000/-was drawn by the applicant to the opposite party no.2 which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured. The question as to whether the articles or the items were purchased by the applicant or not is a question which is to be seen in the trial. However, in the proceedings under Negotiable Instrument Act what is relevant is the drawing of a cheque and dishonouring of the same entailing consequences. 6. At this stage, the Court is not required to go into the factual aspects as well as defences which are the matter of trial. Further more, what is most relevant is the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in this regard. 7. As regards the contention so sought to be raised that no legally enforceable debt or liability stands imposed in view of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, suffice to say that once a cheque has been drawn and which has been dishonoured then this Court is not required to go further at this stage in absence of any document available on record. 8. The reliance so based upon in the case of Tukaram Narayan Reddy vs. Dileep Shashikant Deshpande and others in Criminal Appeal No.762 of 2004 decided on 11.6.2024, the propositions of law so laid down, there is no quarrel to the same, however, that was a case of an acquittal in an appeal however, in the present case, the stage is at 528 BNSS wherein summoning order is subject matter of challenge. 9. Accordingly, no case is made out and the applicant stands consigned to record. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad