Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74327 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6537 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari (AoR No. A/P 0509/16) holding brief of Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Buddh Nagar in complaint No. 16339/2023 (Karambeer Versus Suresh), under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 31.10.2023, a complaint stood lodged under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant relatable to dishonouring of a cheque bearing number "030198" of ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was deposited in the Bank for encashment, which was returned on account of account closed/blocked on 29.08.2023, a statutory demand notice is stated to have been issued on 27.09.2023 and on 31.10.2023, the complaint was preferred. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant could not have been summoned, particularly in view of the fact that the subject cheques stood misplaced. A complaint was made to the police and the same was taken note of and it was also published in widely circulated newspaper. It is thus submitted that there is non legally enforceable debt or liability and further on account of misplacing of the cheque the account was closed by the applicant. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the issues which the applicant seeks to raise are matter of defences, and veracity of the same cannot be gone at this stage, when the trial has not yet commenced. It is also contended that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder of the cheque. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 6. The sole question which would arise is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, the allegation is that the cheque is alleged to have been drawn by the applicant, which was dishonoured. The question as to whether the cheque was lost is a question of fact, which needs adjudication at the stage of trial and not at the stage of summoning. What would be relevant is the application of Section 139 of N.I. Act, i.e. presumption in favour of the holder. The defences cannot be gone into at this stage. Thus no case for interference at this stage is made out. 7. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad