Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106784 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14906 of 2025 Applicant :- Harishchandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Mamta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Padmakar Pandey (AoR No.A/P 0004/2012) holding brief of Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer. 3. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing summoning order dated 24.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No. 07, Allahabad(Prayagraj) in Complaint Case No. 382 of 2024 (Ashok Pandey vs. Harishchandra) under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Atarsuiya, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 07, Allahabad(Prayagraj). 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 on 21.03.2024 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to a deal struck between the applicant and O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.2 had advanced two cheques bearing number "000096" and "000073" on 20.12.2023 and 05.02.2024 of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively, which on presentation in the bank on 22.02.2024 stood dishonoured on 23.02.2024, a statutory demand notice was issued on 29.02.2024 followed by a complaint on 21.03.2024. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned on 24.06.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint cannot be proceeded with in any manner whatsoever, for more than one reasons, firstly, once the cheques which were two in number stood dishonoured, which were drawn on different dates, then in these circumstances, two different complaints ought to have been filed. Secondly, the applicant herein had already made the entire payments and there was no liability stood accrued so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and even otherwise, the applicant has also lodged proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC against O.P. No.2 for lodging of the FIR. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that once the cheques stood drawn, and the same were dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would always be there in favour of holder of the cheques. 6. I have heard the submission so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 7. Apparently, two cheques were drawn as noticed above, which came to be dishonoured on 23.03.2024. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether with respect to every single dishonour of a cheque a separate complaint is to be lodged, learned counsel could not point out any of the provisions. In any view of the matter, a close reading of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act would reveal that there are certain parameters and the criteria which needs to be satisfied before lodging a complaint or summoning the accused. Here in the present case, the Court finds that the cheque had been drawn which have been dishonoured and thereafter, the statutory demand notice had been issued and on service, when the payments were not made, complaint lodged. As a matter of fact, what would be relevant is the fact as to whether there had been any infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act and once the signatures on the cheque are not disputed and further there has been no infraction pointed out, then obviously the summoning order cannot be questioned in that regard. Nonetheless, the issue with regard to the fact that the applicant has already taken a defence that the entire payments have been made and further he had lodged proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC is concerned, and he is not liable to pay, is at best a defence, consideration thereof would arise, when the trial commences and not at this stage. Notably, the presumption of Section 139 of the N.I. Act is already there. 8. In view of the above, the application stands rejected. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad