Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75381 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5947 of 2025 (Leading) Applicant :- Jainish Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Yadav,Rohit Nandan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5979 of 2025 (Connected) Applicant :- Jainish Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Yadav,Rohit Nandan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. The leading application has been listed today at serial no. 10 in the list of fresh cases whereas the connected application has been listed at serial no. 118. 2. Since the questions involved a one and the same, thus, they are being decided by a composite order. 3. Heard Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 4. The leading application has been preferred seeking quash the entire proceedings alongwith summoning order dated 11.01.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 105057 of 2023 (Girish Kumari Vs. Jainish Kumar Singh) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi. 5. The facts of the leading application are that a complaint was lodged on 02.09.2023 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that with respect to a registered sale deed executed between the opposite party no. 2 on one hand and Smt. Sarita Tripathi and Janki Devi, on the other hand applicant herein had drawn two cheques of an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- bearing no. 301801 dated 05.06.2023 and cheque no. 301803 on 13.06.2023 the said cheques on presentation in the bank stood dishonored. A statutory notice was also issued and failing to make the payment, the complaint was lodged and the applicant has been summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act and on 11.01.2024. 6. Questioning the summoning order, the leading application has been preferred. 7. Insofar as the connected application is concerned, here also a complaint stood lodged in the year 2023 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with relation to execution of the sale deed between the opposite party no. 2 on one hand and Janki Devi on the other and cheque was also drawn bearing no. 301809 dated 09.04.2023 of 9,00,000/- which came to be deposited within its maturity period but the same was dishonored and lastly on 31.05.2023 it was deposited and the same stood dishonored on 02.06.2023 on account of insufficient balance a statutory notice is being stated to have been issued on 22.04.2023 which has deliberately avoided and the complaint was filed. The applicant herein has been summoned on 11.01.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no legally enforceable debt or liability stands accrued against the applicant particularly when he was neither the vendor nor the vendee with respect to the said conveyance deed. Submission is merely because the applicant has drawn cheques and the same stood dishonored would not be of any relevance as what is significance is the fact that the applicant ought to have the parties to the said conveyance deed since the applicant is not a party, thus, no legally enforceable debt is there. 8. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the issue as to whether what would be the effect and the ramification of the applicant being a non party to the conveyance deed is something alien to the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act as the said section stands attracted the very moment there has been a dishonored of a cheque, issuance of a demand notice and non- payment within 15 days of the receipt. He further submits that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is always there. 9. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the documents available on record. 10. Apparently, as per the allegations referable to the dishonoring of a cheque there happens to be an assertion that a conveyance deed was executed between two parties but the applicant had drawn the cheques which was subject matter of consideration which on presentation in the bank stood dishonored. 11. Importantly, in the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Court is only required to see as to whether there has been adherence of the provisions of Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act. Once, it is not disputed by the applicant that the cheques were drawn and they were dishonored then the consequences of dishonoring of the cheque would arise. Since there happens to be a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, thus, this Court is not required to delve into the issue regarding the fact that the applicant was not a signatory or a party to the conveyance deed. 12 Accordingly, no case for interference is made, the application is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad