Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123621 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10123 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhoopendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awaneesha Kumar,Narendra Singh,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the summoning order dated 15.10.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Court No.5, Prayagraj in Complaint Case No.738 of 2024(Rakesh Saxena Vs. Bhoopendra Pratap Singh), Under Section 138 N.I.Act, Police Station Jhoonsi, District Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 21.6.2024 a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of liabilities, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no.002422 and 002423 along with cheque no.002424, however, the cheque no. 002424 and 002423 came to be dishonoured when presented in the bank on 25.4.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 8.5.2024/15.5.2024 which is stated to have been served on 17.5.2024 followed by complaint dated 21.6.2024 and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 15.10.2024. He has further submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained particularly when in the complaint in paragraph no.2, there is no recital about the amount of the cheque bearing no.002422 and 002423 which is stated to have been dishonoured. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the same would not be a factor to hold the summoning order bad particularly when the recital itself is contained in the summoning order. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of a two cheques bearing no. 002422 and 002423 a complaint stood preferred as the same was dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice which came to be served as per the recitals contained in the complaint. 6. In the opinion of the Court merely because the amount of the cheque has not been disclosed which stood dishonoured would not make the summoning order suffering from infirmity particularly wherein the Magistrate while summoning the applicant had taken note of the amount and also recapitulated in the summoning order moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is there. 7. Cumulatively analyzing the case of the four corners of law, no case is made out for interference, the application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad