Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50221 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11304 of 2025 Applicant :- Vaibhav Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aun Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Aun Haider, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 6.2.2023 in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2023, (Nexelra Infra vs. Vaibhav Singh), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with relation to dishonouring of a cheque of an amount of Rs.7,28,000/- drawn of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. bearing No.000062 dated 21.6.2022, the opposite party no.2 issued a legal notice dated 10.8.2022 which was returned on 16.8.2022 with a remark 'refused' thereafter the complaint stood preferred on 28.9.2022. He further submitted that there happens to be a construction agreement between the applicant and one Amit Mishra, who is a partner of the opposite party no.2 concerned relatable to construction activities which were to be executed by the applicant. He also submits that the said agreement had been executed on 9.9.2021 and as per condition no.12 a blank cheque along with the other document was forwarded to the opposite party no.2, however, the opposite party no.2 thereafter misused the cheque which was only tendered as a security and after filling up the figures and the dates and the party name presented in the bank which stood dishonoured. 4. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque which has been presented as a security does not answer the definition of debt or other liabilities as per Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He also submits that against the summoning order dated 6.2.2023 the applicant preferred a revision which came to be rejected on 15.1.2025. 5. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the said application while contending that the theory so sought to be propounded by the applicant regarding the cheque being submitted as a security cannot be gone into particularly when para 12 of the agreement does not in any manner whatsoever suggest the same, however, para 12 according to him only deals with a condition providing for submission of certain documents including PAN Card, Adhar Card, one photograph and one sign cheque of active bank account. According to him, there is also a condition mentioned that the blank cheque shall be returned to the contractor at the time of the possession. He further submits that the said documents are not sufficient to establish the case of the applicant and further the issue as to whether the said cheque is security or not is to be thrashed out in a trial. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, in the complaint itself there happens to be an allegation of dishonouring of a cheque of Rs.7,28,000/- issuance of a legal notice refusal to accept the same and filing of the complaint. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any infraction of the provisions contained under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Now, a question arises whether a conclusive finding can be arrived at this stage in the present proceedings with relation to the fact that the said cheque was handed over to the opposite party no.2 as security or not and the said cheque which has been dishonoured is the same which was mentioned in the agreement itself or not. 9. Nevertheless, the issue as to whether a cheque has been presented as a security and it was misutilized is a question which can be seen in the trial and not at this stage. The records do not pin-pointedly lead to the only conclusion that the said cheque was submitted as a security which has been misused. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Vijay Ahuja 2022 (18) SCC 631 and in Sunil Todi vs the State of Gujarat 2022 (16) SCC 762 had clearly observed that the issue as to whether the cheques were issued by way of security is a matter of defence. 10. Applying the said principles of law as noted above in the facts of the case, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference. 11. Accordingly, the present application under section 528 B.N.S.S. stands rejected and consigned to record. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad