Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55706 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12437 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 13.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.07, Agra as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.4720 of 2024 (Ayush Gupta Vs. Shivam Gupta), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Kamla Nagar, District-Agra, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.07, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged in the month of March, 2024 against the applicant by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that a cheque bearing No. 022216 stood dishonored for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 12.02.2024 on account of communication of the bank dated 14.02.2024 that the payment stopped by the drawer. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the allegations contained in the complaint and a statutory demand notice stood issued on 22.02.2024 which was served upon the applicant on 23.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant, thus, submits that the applicant has not received the statutory demand notice and further the said cheque stood stolen and information to the said extent was made to the police authorities wayback on 05.08.2023, he further submits that no such cheque was drawn by the applicant. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised they are the matter of defences particularly when the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act lies against the applicant. 5. 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. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant which was dishonored. The question as to whether the said cheque stood lost is a matter which is to be taken in defence and at the stage of trial as the court below while summoning the applicant was not required to take into account the defences particularly on the face of the provisions contained under Section 139 of the NI Act. So far as the fact that the statutory demand notice was served upon the applicant or not it is also a matter of trial, in view of the fact in para 8 a specific averment has been made that the statutory demand notice was issued on 22.02.2024 which was served upon the opposite party no. 2 on 23.02.2024. 6. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad