Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84205 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13927 of 2025 Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram,Subhash Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram along with Sri Subhash Chand, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pankaj Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 8211 of 2020 (Madhav Singh Vs. Kaushal Kishore and another) Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3 Aligarh and also quash the Summoning Order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3 Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 3.6.2020 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with discharge of a liability a cheque bearing no.167530 dated 11.3.2020 for an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- was drawn by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no.2 which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured on 11.5.2020 with the remark of stop payment. A statutory demand notice was issued on 19.5.2020 which was received followed by the complaint on 3.6.2010 and a summoning order came be passed on 19.9.2024 by the court below summoning the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He has further submitted that the applicant has no relationship either of business or of any family with the opposite party no.2 while inviting attention towards the averments made in paragraph 17 of the application. It is further contended that the subject cheque leaflet stood lost and a complaint was lodged to the police authority on 16.3.2020 and thus there is no legal enforceable debt or liability upon the applicant. 4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that once a cheque stood drawn then on its dishonour the presumption would be in favour of the holder of the cheque. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. Apparently, the allegation in the complaint is with regard to dishonouring of a cheque of Rs.3,70,000/- dated 11.3.2020 bearing no.167530 when presented in the bank on 11.5.2020 with the remarks stop payment a statutory notice also came to be issued on 19.5.2020 and the said notice was received. The issue as to whether the cheque stood lost or the fact that the applicant has no relationship of any kind with the opposite party no.2 is a matter of trial which cannot be gone into at this stage in the present proceedings. Further the applicant has not disputed that he has not received statutory demand notice. Once a cheque stood drawn then the presumption under Section 138 of the N.I. Act would be in favour of the holder. Interestingly, in the entire application there is no denial of the fact that the signature which was appearing on the cheque was not of the applicant. Thus, interference is declined and the application is rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for bail. 7. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad