Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36952 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8399 of 2025 Applicant :- Rinku Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Kumar,Nitika Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Kapil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and impugned summoning order dated 28.04.2022 passed by, Court No. 5, Meerut In Complaint Case No. 14989 Of 2020 (Ganga Prasad A.C.J.M. Vs Rinku Yadav) Arising Out Of Section 138 Of Negotiable Instruments Act Police Station Civil Lines Meerut as well as order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 13. Meerut In Criminal Revision No. 245 Of 2024 (Rinku Yadav Vs State Of U.P. And Another). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 17.11.2020 relatable to the dishonouring of two cheques; one of amount Rs.1,15,00,000/- and second of Rs.50,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has not issued the said cheques and while inviting attention towards pages- 20 and 21 of the paper-book, it is sought to be contended that one of the cheques was in English and another was in Hindi and further applicant does not possess the said bank account. He seeks to rely upon the certificate of the bank at page-43 of the paper-book mentioning therein that the applicant only possesses a saving bank A/c no. 920010062094825 with the Axis Bank and so far as the cheques for the A/c No. 919010013595443, they do not belong to the applicant. Submission is that there also happens to be an agreement between the parties. Thus, it is submitted that the order summoning the applicant and the revisional order, which are subject matter of challenge, be also set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that these are the defences which are sought to be taken and the trial court has applied its mind while summoning and the revisional court has also applied its mind while affirming the order of the trial court. He submits that in the present case, no interference is liable to be accorded. 5. Having heard the arguments made across the Bar, I am of the opinion that the trial court has applied its mind while issuing summoning order and the said order was upheld by the revisional court. Apart from the same, what is to be seen is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage, particularly when the summoning order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. So far as the contention so sought to be canvassed by the applicant that he does not possess the bank account is concerned, it is a matter of defence and it cannot be tested at this stage in the present proceeding. 6. Accordingly, no case is made out. The application is rejected. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad