Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36134 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8137 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pratap Singh,Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.92284 of 2022, Smt. Deepmala Vs. Raj Kumar, under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station-Panki, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as summoning order dated 17.11.2022. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that cheque in question was a missing cheque regarding which police complaint has already been filed by the applicant on 20.11.2021. It is further submitted that one cheque bearing no.871176 regarding which the applicant has informed the police was returned with the endorsement 'stop payment' while the another cheque bearing no.274790 was returned with the endorsement 'fund insufficient'. Therefore, if two cheques are presented on the same date, they cannot be returned for different reasons. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that there is nothing on record which shows that the applicant has made any complaint regarding missing of the cheque no.274790 and the police complaint which has been annexed with the affidavit shows that missing report was given regarding cheque no.871176. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record that applicant has intimated to the bank in the year 2021 that the aforesaid cheque has been lost. Had it been done, then cheque would have been returned with the endorsement reported 'missing loss'. Even otherwise two different cheques were returned with the different endorsement one with 'stop payment' and another for 'fund insufficient'. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Lafarge Aggregates And Concrete India Private Ltd. Vs. Sukarsh Azad And Another reported in 2014 (13) SCC 779 has already observed that if the cheque is presented before the bank and same is returned with the endorsement 'stop payment' or 'fund insufficient' or other usual reason, then the proceeding cannot be quashed. These grounds can be raised by the drawer of the cheque during the trial. 6. In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding. 7. Therefore, present application is rejected. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 S.Chaurasia Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad