Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77758 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 326 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 33695/2023, (Sushil Kumar Singh Versus Dinesh Singh Yadav), Under Section-138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station-Alinagar, District-Chandauli and summoning order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Complaint Case No. 33695/2023, (Sushil Kumar Singh Versus Dinesh Singh Yadav), Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station-Alinagar, District-Chandauli, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 on 18.9.2023 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that a cheque bearing no.038664 of Rs.20 lakhs dated 28.7.2023 when presented in the bank stood dishonoured thereafter statutory notice was issued, complaint was filed and the applicant has been summoned. He has further submitted that there happens to be a compromise between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 page 32 of the paper book out of the court on a non judicial stamp, however the opposite party is resiling from the same. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the issue with the applicant is seeking to raise they are the subject matter of challenge. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and perusal of the record, the Court is of the opinion that once the drawing of the said cheque and the signature thereof is not disputed then presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would always be trouble of the holder. Moreover, the Court is required to go into the aspect of compromise. However, in absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional infirmity coupled with the fact that there has been procedural compliance of Sections 138 & 142 of the N.I. Act, no case is made for interference. 6. The application stands rejected. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad