Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44431 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7023 of 2025 Applicant :- Arpit Kumar Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Motilal, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application U/s 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.05.2024 passed by ACJM-I, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 47116 of 2023 (Indrabhusan Singh Vs. Arpit) under Section 138 of NI Act, P.S. Chaurichaura, District Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a perusal of the complaint lodged under Section 138 of the NI Act on 11.09.2023 make it more evident that in para 4 of the said complaint, it has been alleged that the applicant had drawn two cheques one dated 05.07.2023 drawn from State Bank of India for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- bearing No. 299500 and the other cheque for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- of the same bank No. 0060120 dated 06.07.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque no. 0060120 stood dishonored on 18.07.2023 and thereafter a notice was issued on 02.08.2023 and complaint was filed on 11.09.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant, thus, submits that the summoning order which is at page 44 of the paper book recites two reasons firstly, that there is insufficient funds and secondly differences in the signatures on account whereof the cheque No. 0060120 stood dishonored. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that another complaint stood lodged on 11.09.2023 relatable to the dishonor of the cheque no. 299500 in which also summoning order has been issued on 01.04.2024. According to the learned counsel for the applicant even prior to the issuance of the said cheques there happens to be a missing complaint lodged by the applicant on 02.07.2023 at page 30 of the paper book. He, thus, submits that the cheques stood missing on account whereof they were misused by the opposite party no. 2 for his personal gain. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be the arguments sought to be raised by the applicant that they do not in any manner whatsoever show any jurisdictional error committed by the court below particularly when there happens to be adherence to the provisions of section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act. Having heard the arguments so sought to be advanced, the sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings at this present stage is the extent of judicial intervention apparently, there happens to be an allegation of issuance of a cheque and dishonoring of the same, however, the applicant disputes the fact as according to the applicant, the cheques went missing and a missing report stood lodged. The question as to whether the cheques stood missing or not is a fact which can only be determined at the stage of trial and not at this stage particularly in absence of any jurisdictional error particularly when there was mismatch in the signature and insufficiency of the funds. Accordingly, the applicant is consigned to record. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad