Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130653 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9951 of 2025 Applicant :- Siksha Education Trust And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Bank Of India Through Mohammad Shahabuddin And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Pandey, Srestha Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Srestha Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1 as well as Ms. Eshita Sand (A/E 0730/2013) who has received notice on behalf of opposite party no2-Bank. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no 1860/2019 (Bank of India Versus Siksha Education Trust and others) filed under Section138 of the N.I Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No 2 Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the year 2019 with an allegation that the applicants herein had drawn a cheque bearing No. 007406 which came to be dishonoured on 19.01.2019 with the remarks 'funds insufficient', followed by a statutory demand notice dated 24.01.2019 and the complaint pursuant whereto the applicants came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 29.04.2019. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that already proceedings before DRAT had already been initiated and the property in question auction and the applicants has also deposited certain amount in the DRAT also. 4. Learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are independent proceedings which have got no material bearing with respect to the recovery proceedings sought to be initiated under the DRAT Act or under the Revenue Act. They further submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the cheques stood drawn, followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint and the applicants came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Though according to the learned counsel for the applicants proceedings for auction had been initiated by the Bank and the matter has also been engaging attention before DRAT and the applicants claim to have deposited certain amounts but the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are independent proceedings which have got nothing to do with the said proceedings which have been initiated for recovery and before the DRAT. Furthermore, the Court finds that once the cheque stood drawn, presumption under Section 139 of the Act would be there. 7. Apart from the same, the summoning order is dated 19.04.2019 and the present application preferred on 21.02.2025 approximately after six years, thus, in absence of tendering any explanation for inordinate delay and unexplained delay, this Court declines to interfere. 8. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. 9. Leaving it open to the applicants to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad