Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32168 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7476 of 2025 Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Gupta Alias Naveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Padmakar Rai, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Meerut as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.11969 of 2022 (Ultimate Decor Particle Vs Naveen Kumar Gupta), under Section- 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Nauchandi, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Meerut, as well as summoning order dated 22.09.2022. 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicant on the ground that during course of a business, certain goods were supplied by opposite party no.2 to the applicant, against which, vouchers were also prepared. Against those vouchers, the applicant has issued cheques in question and when the cheques in question were presented before the bank, the same were returned with the endorsement ''fund insufficient''. Thereafter, demand notice was sent to the applicant through registered post and despite issuance of demand notice, cheque amount was not paid. Then, the impugned complaint was filed, which is under challenge in the present case. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant had filed discharge application which was erroneously rejected by the court below by making observations that the applicant can raise the issue during trial. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned proceeding is absolutely erroneous as date in cheques in question was altered by changing the year of issuance of cheque from 2020 to 2022. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that authority letter on the basis of which the impugned complaint has been filed by one Sawez, who is the son of the proprietor of the firm-Ultimate Decor Particle on the basis of photocopy of the authority letter, is not acceptable unless the original copy thereof is on record. Therefore, impugned proceeding is absolutely erroneous. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that there is no provision for filing discharge application in the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act, 1881 as the proceeding is summary in nature. It is further submitted by learned AGA that there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding, therefore, present application deserves to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that though discharge application filed by the applicant was rejected by making certain observations on merit regarding authority letter. Though, these observations were not required to be made as the discharge application itself is not maintainable as the provision of discharge application is u/s 245 Cr.P.C. which applies in warrant cases and the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act, 1881 is summary in nature in which procedure of summons case to limited extent can be applied. 7. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the discharge application was erroneously rejected is misconceived because the same was itself not maintainable. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there was alteration of the year in the cheque in question is concerned, from the perusal of cheques in question, it appears that alteration in the year of issuance of cheque was made by the applicant himself by putting the signature on the cheques, though, same is being disputed by the applicant. Even otherwise cheque in question was not returned by the bank with the endorsement "alteration in cheque" but on the ground of ''fund insufficient''. Therefore, this ground is also misconceived. 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that impugned complaint has been filed by the son of the proprietor of the firm on the basis of photocopy of authority letter, therefore, same is not maintainable. The Apex Court in the case of M/s TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited Vs. SMS Asia Private Ltd. And Another reported in 2022 (7) SCC 612 has observed that if the dispute is raised regarding the authority of the complaint issued by the payee then same can be raised during trial but cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding. 9. This judgement of the Apex Court was again considered by this court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Mangla Vs. State of U.P. & Another passed in Application u/s 482 No.23721 of 2024 vide order dated 13.12.2024, wherein this court again observed that issue of authority of the complaint can be raised during trial but cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding. 10. In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding. 11. Accordingly, present application is rejected. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 S.Chaurasia Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad