Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56964 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12794 of 2025 Applicant :- Bilal Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Javed Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Javed Alam, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned State Law Officer. 2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the complaint case no. 5668 of 2024 (Rohit Kumar vs. Bilal Khan) under Section 138 of N.I. Act P.S. Partapur, Districtr Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as summoning order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a perusal of the complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant would make it more than evident that the opposite party no.2 come up with a stand that there happens to be a business relationship between the applicant and opposite party no.2 with respect to the applicant had taken certain items but the payments were not been made. Thus, the applicant is stated to have drawn a cheque of Rs. 2593762/- which on presentation in the bank stood dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that the said cheque were as a matter of fact with the opposite party no.2 as security and further they do not answer the description of debt and other liabilities in view of provisions contained under Section 138 of N.I. Act. He further contended that the applicant is a poor person. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand submits that whatever arguments so sought to be raised they are the matter of defences which cannot be gone into the present proceedings. 5. Having heard the submissions made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, the allegations refers in the complaint for dishonouring of a cheque, the allegation of the applicant is that the security is a cheques were being sought to be misused in order to implant a criminality upon the applicant. The questions as to whether it is a security is a matter of trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Womb Lab ltd vs. Vijay Ahuja 2022 (18) SCC 631 followed in a substitution decision in the case of Sunil Todi and other vs. State of Gujarat 2022 (16) SCC 762 has opined that the issued regard to the fact as to whether the cheque was meant for security cannot be gone in the present proceeding as the matter of trial. So far as the arguments so sought to be advanced by the applicant that he does not possess the capacity to make such payment, the same is not convincible particularly when presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is against the applicant. Accordingly, no good ground is made so as to throttle the investigation at this stage and the application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad