Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85183 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16031 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 213 of 2018 Zafar Versus Anil Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khurja, District Bulandshahr. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, a cheque bearing number "936338" of Rs.2,22,000/- was drawn by the applicant in favour of O.P. No.2, which on presentation in the bank stood dishonoured on 08.12.2017 followed by a statutory notice dated 22.12.2018 and then the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 27.02.2018. 4. Questioning the entire proceedings emanating from from complaint lodged under Section 138 N.I. Act, the applicant has preferred the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the O.P. No.2 is an owner of plot nos. 82 and 25, however, he had executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Brahmjeet, but later on the said agreement was cancelled and in the said agreement, the applicant was a witness. It is also submitted that the O.P. no.2 and the father of the applicant thereafter entered into an agreement and the O.P. no.2 had executed a registered agreement to sell on 15.12.2016 for the sale of the property against the consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was also paid and a residue amount came to be paid subsequently and the registered sale deed stood executed. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that any legal enforceable debt or liability was upon the applicant, particularly when the transaction which was actually entered into between the parties was with respect to transfer of property and the entire consideration was paid. He submits that even in fact a complaint was also lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicant being Complaint Case No. 24 of 2018, Zafar vs. Anil and others under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC and the applicant herein had approached this Court in an application under Section 528 BNSS No. 9646 of 2025 wherein an interim protection has been accorded. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that even an application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act for the grant of interim compensation was filed by O.P. No.2, which on contest came to be rejected on 10.11.2022, wherein the court below had observed that prima facie the O.P. No.2 had no case for grant of interim compensation. He submits that the factum of lodging of the Complaint Case No.24 of 2018, under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC, would have an effect and impact upon the present proceedings, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that there is any legal enforceable debt or liability. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the present application has been preferred in the year 2025, whereas the summoning order is of the year 2018 and on 10.11.2022, the applicant contested the proceedings under Section 143-A and an order came to be passed on the said date rejecting the application and as per the order sheet, the cross-examination of DW-1 has also completed on 10.02.2025, thus it would be too late of the day to throttle the investigation which is already underway. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 8. The sole question, which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with relation of dishonour of a cheque. The summoning order has been passed on 27.02.2018 and the applicant contested the proceedings under Section 143-A of N.I. Act and an order came to be passed on 10.11.2022. The order-sheet also reveals that the proceedings are underway and the cross- examination of the applicant has also been done. The argument so sought to be raised by the applicant that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability is concerned, the same is a matter of trial on the face of the intervening facts emerging in the present case. It is for the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds which are available and permissible under law, including the import and impact of the Complaint Case No.24 of 2018, under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC. Nonetheless, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that any contention so raised, which is permissible under law and that by a statutory provision would be dealt by the court below strictly in accordance with law. 9. Interference at this stage is declined. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad