HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39629 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 order dated 23.08.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Complaint Case No.8726 of 2022 (Pramod Jindal Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District-Hapur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that on earlier litigation, applicant had approached this Court by application U/S 482 No.30639 of 2023 (Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby this Court has passed following order: "5. As requested by the counsel, it is directed that the accused may appear before the court below within a period of one month from today through the representing counsel and move an application seeking compounding of offence through compromise and deposit 10% of cheque amount. On such application being moved the concerned court may take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a maximum period of four months from today to make an endeavour in this direction. Thereafter, the court shall pass necessary orders specifically keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) within a period of five months from today. 6. If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and he is further required to appear and face the trial, the court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary steps and measures to procure his attendance as the law permits. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramod Kumar Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 7. In the aforesaid period of five months or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused. 8. It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed off." 3-A. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in pursuance to above mentioned order dated 22.8.2023, applicant had preferred an application for compounding of offence for accepting the amount of Rs.1,34,000/- towards remaining amount to be paid. Learned counsel for applicant submits that cheque which was dishonoured was of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was given as security. The amount of Rs.46,000/- was paid in cash to the brother of complainant. It is stated that the aforesaid amount has been received by the complainant. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that Rs.20,000/- was deposited with the court concerned in pursuance to order dated 9.11.2023 as such remaining amount of Rs.1,34,000/- applicant is ready to pay. The aforesaid application for compounding has been rejected by impugned order dated 23.8.2025. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial court has incorrectly rejected the application for compounding. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & another, decided on 11 October, 2022; 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1202. 5. It is to be seen that in the present case, applicant had preferred an application for compounding for payment of Rs.1,34,000/- against dishonour of cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-. The claim of applicant is that Rs.46,000/- has already been paid to complainant by applicant in cash on 6.11.2021. 6. It is further to be seen that the complainant in response to application filed by applicant for compounding has specifically stated that he has not received Rs.46,000/- from the applicant. Once there is denial on the part of complainant with regard to receipt of Rs.46,000/- by complainant although complainant could not dispute the deposit of Rs.20,000/- with the court concerned then the aforesaid dispute is a factual dispute between the parties and the applicant would require to lead evidence with regard to payment of Rs.46,000/- and the aforesaid issue can only be decided at the stage of trial. NA528 No. 39629 of 2025 2 7. 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 defence 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(s) 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. 8. The aforesaid controversy/issue cannot be gone into in application under Section 528 BNSS. 9. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. October 14, 2025 D. Tamang NA528 No. 39629 of 2025 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad