Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74297 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6505 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Janaki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anit Kumar Pal,Rajnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava (AoR No.0988/2021) holding brief of Sri Anit Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 12.12.2024 of Complaint Case No. 414 of 2024 (Jitendra Upadhyay Versus Ram Janaki) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya, pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C. Auraiya. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 07.11.2024 against the applicant with relation to dishonouring of a cheque dated 20.09.2024 bearing number "000005" of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- when presented in the Bank on 27.09.2024, which was dishonoured on 30.09.2024, a statutory demand notice is stated to have issued on 05.10.2024 and a complaint was preferred on 07.11.2024. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the entire payment has been made with respect to the financial assistance so extended to applicant by O.P. No.2 and the cheque which was with the O.P. No.2 was dated 20.05.2020, however, manipulation has been done by making it 20.09.2024. Further submission is that the entire payment stood made post 20.05.2024. He submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability against the applicant, thus, the summoning order dated 12.12.2024 cannot be sustained. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder and whatever arguments have been sought to be raised, they are the matter of fact. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the record, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn, however, the same was dishonoured. The question as to whether the said cheque has been misused while altering the dates, is a question of trial, which cannot be gone into at this stage. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is always there. 8. Accordingly, the application is consigned to record. 9. Documents filed today are taken on record and are marked as Appendix- 'A'. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad