Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89478 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18894 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri K.K. Vishwakarma, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding in complaint case no. 30949 of 2023 (Nirvikar Gupta Vs. Sandeep Chaurasiya), under section 138 Ν.Ι. Act Police Station Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur as well as summoning order dated 02.02.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court-8, Gorakhpur, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge Court No-8, District-Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 23.5.2023 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant herein used to have business connection with the opposite party no.2 and a cheque bearing no.000004 dated 11.4.2023 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was drawn which came to be dishonoured when presented in the bank on 11.4.2023 followed by a statutory notice dated 24.4.2023 and a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 23.5.2023 leading to summoning of the applicant on 2.2.2024. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the said cheque was kept as a security with the opposite party no.2 which has been misutilized and further there remain no legally enforceable debt or liability upon the applicant. Further submission is that whatever payments were due and payable had already been paid. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once a cheque stands drawn then the presumption is in favour of the holder under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 6. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the cheque stood drawn which has been dishonoured. The question as to whether the same was by way of security or it has been misutilized is a matter of trial which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings at the stage of summoning. More so the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder of the cheque. Since nothing has been brought on record to show any jurisdictional error committed by the court below and there has been no in faction of the provision contained under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I.Act. Thus interference is declined. 7. The application stands consigned to record. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad