Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83267 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17692 of 2025 Applicant :- Munajir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Garg, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Motilal, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to set-aside the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Session Judge Sambhal at Chandausi in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2024 (Munajir v/s State & others) as well as order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 6235 of 2019 (Tasleem Ahamad v/s Munajir) under section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station Nakhasa District Sambhal. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 31.10.2018 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act that with relation to alleged discharge of the liability, a cheque of an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was drawn by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2 when presented in the bank stood dishonored on 13.09.2018/14.09.2018, a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 28.09.2019, which was served upon the applicant on 29.09.2018 followed by a complaint. Thereafter, the Court of ACJM, Chandausi, Sambhal in Complaint Case No. 6235 of 2019 summoned the applicant on 18.12.2019 against which a revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2024 came to be preferred which came to be rejected by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandausi at Sambhal on 13.02.2025. 4. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is inconsistency in the allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the affidavit under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as the cheque stood dishonored on two days 13.09.2018 and 14.09.2018 but slash has been used in para 3 of the complaint which means that only on one date either 13.09.2018 or 14.09.2018, the cheque was dishonored but in the affidavit under Section 200 Cr.P.C. two dates have been mentioned 13.09.2018 and 14.09.2018. He further submits that there is no illegally enforceable debt or liability upon the applicant. 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits once the cheque has been drawn which has been dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 of the Act would be in favour of the holder. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a cheque of an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was drawn which was dishonored. The question regarding the alleged inconsistency that the cheque was dishonored on one day on 13.09.2018 and 14.09.2018 is concerned, the Court finds that there is no such inconsistency as suggested as the cheque in this regard. Further, even otherwise once a cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonored then the presumption would be in favour of the holder under Section 138 of the NI Act. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks a prayer for compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. 9. Accordingly, with the above observations, the application is disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to prefer appropriate application for compounding under Section 147 of N.I. Act in view of the judgement in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal AIR 2010 SC 1907 by 05.06.2025 and on the submission of the same, the court below shall decide the same within 45 days and, in case, such proceeding is preferred before the court concerned, then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in terms of the judgment passed in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). 10. Till the application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant with respect to order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Session Judge Sambhal at Chandausi in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2024 (Munajir v/s State & others) as well as order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 6235 of 2019 (Tasleem Ahamad v/s Munajir) under section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station Nakhasa District Sambhal. 11. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad