Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37970 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8615 of 2025 Applicant :- Amarjeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 by Sri Rahul Chaudhary, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Jyoti Singh, learned counsel for the State/opposite party no.1 and Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 3. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 14673 of 2024 (Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited vs. Amarjeet Yadav) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Hariparwat District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, District Agra. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant pursuant whereto summoning order has been issued by the court below on 13.9.2024 relatable to the commission of the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with respect to a post dated cheque for an amount of Rs.5,93,000/-, cheque no.577353 dated 6.3.2024, the same stood dishonoured, the same stood returned on account of insufficient fund. He has further submitted that the said cheque had not been issued with respect to any debt, however, he has also submitted that the vehicle in question which stood financed by the opposite party no.2 was stolen pursuant whereto FIR also stood lodged and the vehicle itself was insured and thus the dishonouring of the cheque would not attract the provisions of 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has invited the attention of the Court towards the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited 2016 (10) SCC 458 so as to contend that in the present proceedings the issue as to whether cheques were given as security or not or whether there was outstanding liability or not, the question of fact which is to be determined by the trial court after recording of evidence of parties. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that since the aspect relating to security has been sought to be raised which is an issue which needs to be thrashed out in the trial, thus respectfully following the judgement in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao (Supra) which had followed the judgement in the case of Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr 2015 (11) SCC 776, this Court is not required to go into the said issue at this stage particularly when the legal aspect relating to factual issues. Thus, interference is declined and the application is rejected. 7. With the above observations, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. stands rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad