Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56323 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12322 of 2025 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neha Rajput,Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Parmeshwar Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 3. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 14672 of 2024 (Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Hariparvat, District Agra and summoning order dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court no.8, Agra. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a perusal of the complaint would show that the financial assistance was sought to be rendered by the opposite party no.2 for SUV the vehicle in question and a loan of an amount of Rs. 329000/- was extended and a cheque was drawn on 27.02.2024 which was presented for the bank on 16.03.2024 which stood dishonoured thereafter a statutory notice was also issued. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to argue that the provisions of section 138 read with section 142 of N.I. Act would not be applicable particularly when the same they do not answer the description of debt and other liabilities and as a matter of fact the cheques were only for suretiy. Thus, according to him, the proceedings be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA on the other hand submits that the issue is no more res- integra and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampelly Satynarayan Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. 2016 (10) SCC 458 has already been observed that the issue as to whether cheques were given as a security or not and whether there is any outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which is to be determined by the trial court after recording of the evidence. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that since the aspect relating to security has been sought to be raised which is an issue which needs to be thrashed out in the trial, thus respectfully following the judgement in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao (Supra) which had followed the judgement in the case of Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr 2015 (11) SCC 776, this Court is not required to go into the said issue at this stage particularly when the legal aspect relating to factual issues. Thus, interference is declined and the application is rejected. 7. With the above observations, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. stands rejected. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad