Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91046 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17873 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.S. Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 10.09.2024 passed by ACJM, court no.8 Agra in case no 4169 of 2024 (Smt. Sukhjeevan Soi vs. Rajesh Kumar), U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Hari Parvat, District Agra pending in the court of ACJM, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 11.03.2024, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no2 against the applicant U/s 138 of N.I. Act wherein the allegations is that a cheque bearing no. 358776 of an amount of Rs.4 lac dated 28.06.2022 was drawn by the applicant in favour of opposite party no.2 which came to be dishonoured on 30.06.2022 on account of exceeds arrangements. Thereafter, a statutory notice was also issued on 06.02.2024 followed by a complaint dated 11.03.2024 and the applicant was summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 10.09.2024. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has preferred the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained particularly in view of the fact that the cheque in question was kept as a security, however the same has been misutilised while filling up the figures and getting it dishonoured. The submissions is that no legal enforcement debt or liability stands attracted in that regard. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once a cheque stood drawn, then the presumption under section139 of N.I. Act in favour of the holder. 6. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record. 7. Apparently, a cheque was drawn which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory notice. The question as to whether the cheque was meant for security or not is a question of trial. In the case of M/s Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Vijay Ahuja 2022 (18) SCC 631 and in Sunil Todi vs the State of Gujarat 2022 (16) SCC 762 had clearly observed that the issue as to whether the cheques were issued by way of security is a matter of defence. Further, once nothing has been pointed to show that there has been judicial infirmity or the fact that there has been any infraction of Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere in the present proceedings and the application is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad