Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63515 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 965 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar 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 482 of CrPC preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 05.04.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge(J.D.)F.T.C.-1/ Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No. 31658 of 2024 (Rohit Sikharwar Versus O- 2 rental Service Proprietor Anuj Jain) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Rasulpur, District- Firozabad, pending before learned Civil Judge (J.D.)F.T.C.-1/ Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the complaint lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant on 14.03.2024 would reveal that an allegation is to the effect that a cheque was drawn by the applicant on 31.01.2024 of Rs.15,00,000/- on ICICI Bank bearing number "000798", which when presented by the Bank on 02.02.2024 was dishonoured on 03.02.2024. Thereafter a statutory demand notice was also issued, which was served and the complaint was filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no legally enforceable debt or liability accrues or lies against the applicant, particularly when with respect to certain purchase of medical equipments or articles, there was defficiency in the quality of the same. Pursuant whereto, applicant got the payments stopped and further the pass-book also stood misplaced and the cheques have also been misused and the complaint to the said extent was made on 07.02.2014. He also submits that no such cheque was even drawn, thus there is no question of dishonouring of the same. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be the argument of the applicant, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is still there. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the records in its entirety, the Court finds that the cheque was drawn on 31.03.2024, which was dishonoured on 03.02.2024 on presentation on 02.02.2024, then a statutory demand notice was issued which was also served. As a matter of fact the issue as to whether the cheque was misused or the pass-book was stolen is a matter which is to be taken in trial. Further more, the contention so sought to be advanced that there happens to be deficiency in the items which were being provided in lieu whereof the payments were to be made is a matter to be tried. Apart from that, the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act would also come into play. 6. Accordingly no good ground is made out. Interference is declined. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he seeks to file application for granting bail before the court below. 8. The application is disposed of while observing that in case, such an application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided subject to legal impediment strictly in accordance with the law of the land. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad