Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81480 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17194 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Foreign Liquor Shop-Fl Arya Nagar Through Licencee Rajhans Jaiswal Opposite Party :- D.J. Spirit And Wine And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.S. Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of summoning order dated 26.07.2023 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Nagar Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in Complaint Case No. 230527 of 2022 D.J. Spirit and Wine through Bhola Nath Jaiswal Vs. Rajhansh Jaiswal Licensee foreign liquor Police Station - Panki District- Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with relation to certain liquor/ beer being supplied by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant, the amount due was Rs. 15,12,746/- and a cheque stood drawn by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2 on 29.09.2022 bearing No. 002449 and when the same was presented in the bank on 30.09.2022, the same was dishonoured on the ground payments stopped by the drawer. Thereafter a statutory demand notice was issued on 21.10.2022 followed by the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prior to it on 27.07.2022, the applicant had directed the bank to stop the payment, particularly, when the excise starts from 01, April and concludes on 31, March and since entire payments were made and there was no outstanding dues and the cheque which was with the opposite party no. 2 was prone to misutilization and misuse which compelled the applicant to take such action. He submits that the dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 is a commercial business dispute and mere dishonour of cheque would not attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand has argued that the once the cheque stands drawn then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be in favour of the holder. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. Apparently, a cheque stated to have been drawn on 29.09.2022 which was dishonroued on 30.09.2022 followed by a statutory demand notice on 21.10.2022 and the complaint. Contention so sought to be advanced by the leaned counsel for the applicant that payments stopped by the drawer would not come within the ambit of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is concerned, the same is out of context as Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 has held as under: "16. The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in NEPC Micon Ltd. (supra) that the expression “amount of money …………. is insufficient” appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such “as account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer” are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the “signatures do not match” or that the “image is not found”, which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act." 8. Further so far as the theory so propounded by the applicant with that there was bona fide reasons one of them was that the cheque was prone to be misunitilized as the entire payments have been made of is concerned, the same is at best of a matter of defence which cannot be gone into the stage of the summoning, particularly, this Court is not required to make a roving and fishing inquiry which may be subject matter of trial, moreover presumption under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad