HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10010 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint No.95557 of 2023 (Pravesh Kumar Singh Vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Rohaniya, District Varanasi as well as quash the entire proceeding of Complaint No.95557 of 2023 (Pravesh Kumar Singh. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh). 3. The case of the applicant is that on 01.08.2023, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act that the applicant herein is the owner of five properties, description whereof has been given in para-2 of the complaint. Allegation is that the applicant herein is the co-owner of the said properties to the share of 1/3rd and an agreement was entered on notarized affidavit between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 that with respect to delivering possession and other aspects relating to the ownership of the applicant who is the co-owner of the said property to the tune of 1/3 % which is presently in dispute. The opposite party no. 2 will take necessary steps and do the spade work in that regard and he will be entitled to 40% of the remuneration of the total sale proceeds. Allegation is to the extent that the applicant herein transferred a piece of property to the tune of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and obtained the sale Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar, Satyam Mishra, Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceeds from the purchaser and in order to give 40% of the remuneration had drawn a cheque bearing no. 000001 dated 05.06.2023 to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 22.06.2023, followed by a statutory demand notice was issued on 03.07.2023 and the complaint on 01.08.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 20.07.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Questioning the same, the applicant has been filed the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all the opposite party no. 2 happens to be an Advocate in District Court, Varanasi thus in accordance with the Bar Council of India Act and Rules framend thereinunder he could not have entered into any agreement with the applicant for getting remuneration then there is no debt or liability so as to implicate the applicant with respect to dishonour of a cheque which has been drawn to discharge the said liability and secondly, the agreement itself is not registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, thus, in view of the provisions of the Contract Act, thus, it has no legal sanctity. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji; AIR 2018 SC 1382. 6. Learned State Law officer submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was eventually dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. Apparently, the complaint lodged under Section 138 of the Act alleges that the applicant with respect to discharge of its liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 000001 dated 05.06.2023 of an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- which on presentation in bank on 22.06.2023 came to be dishonoured, followed by a statutory demand notice. The first and foremost question which would fall for consideration is whether taking into account the allegations to its face value, there happens to be a legal enforcement of debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the face of the fact that no such agreement could have been entered into between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 as he is lawyer by profession. As a matter of fact at the stage of summoning under Section 138 NA528 No. 10010 of 2025 2 of the Act, this Court is not required to go into the status of the opposite party no. 2 based upon the fact that he happens to be a lawyer and under the some provisions of law it is forbidden to enter into such type of agreement. 9. The said question is obviously a subject matter of trial wherein evidence is to be led whether on the date of said agreement the opposite party no. 2 was enrolled as a lawyer and also the import and impact of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Bar Council of India (supra). 10. Nonetheless, it is for the applicant herein to contest the trial while substantiating his claim that even otherwise it is forbidden under law to enter into such type of agreement and thus the offences under Section 138 of the Act regarding the debt and the liability would not arise. 11. As regards, the second submission that the agreement so entered between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 on 07.04.2023 had not been registered and it was liable to be registered and it looses its legal sanctity being notarized is concerned the same would have its own effect and ramification when the trial commences as at the stage of summoning this Court is not required to delve into the said issues. Whether or not the said agreement test the legal sanctity of a valid contract under the Contract Act is also a question of law and facts which could not be seen at the stage when the summoning is subject matter of challenge, moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is there. 12. Cumulatively, analyzing the case from the four corners of law, the Court finds that no good ground is made out for interference at this stage, accordingly, the application is disposed of. 13. Leaving it open to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial. September 8, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 10010 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad