HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8802 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash summoning order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate Court no.7 Agra in complaint case no. 18058 of 2023, Shani Kumar Vs. Harshit Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District- Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate Court no.7 Agra. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred on 21.04.2023 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no. 019245 dated 28.02.2023 of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank on 28.02.2023 came to be dishonored on 01.03.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20.03.2023 which came to be served upon the applicant on 22.03.2023 and a complaint came to be filed on 24.04.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 13.07.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability stands attracted so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harshit Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of a cheque on 28.02.2023, communication whereof was made on 01.03.2023, a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 20.03.2023 which was served upon the applicant on 22.03.2023 and 15 days time was accorded to the applicant and the complaint was filed within a period of one month after the said cause of action which is within the permissible period. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there has been any technical infraction on the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act, the answer is in negative. The question whether the cheque stood drawn by the applicant or not is a question, the question whether there is legally enforceable debt or liability is a question of trial consideration whereof would be necessitated only at the stage when the trial commences. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant, as per the instructions, confines his relief for compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act in view of the judgement in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal AIR 2010 SC 1907. 8. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to prefer appropriate application for compounding under Section 147 of N.I. Act by 19.09.2025 and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in terms of the judgment passed in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). September 1, 2025 Rajesh NA528 No. 8802 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad