Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101591 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19047 of 2025 Applicant :- Firoz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atal Bihari Tripathi,Saurabh Kumar Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shyam Kishore Tripathi (AoR A/S 0345/2020) holding brief of Sri Atal Bihari Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Complaint Case No. 7464 of 2020 (Lalitesh Kumar Vashishtha Versus Firoz) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station-Banna Devi, District Aligarh pending in the Court of In-charge Court, Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act on 27.11.2020 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability a cheque bearing no. 000003 of an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- dated 02.09.2020 was drawn in favour of the applicant which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 10.09.2020 and the dishonor memo was received on 15.09.2020 thereafter, a registered statutory demand notice was issued on 09.10.2020 which was served upon the applicant on 14.10.2020 and the complaint stood lodged on 27.11.2020 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act on 08.08.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offences under Section 138 of the NI Act particularly for the reason that the said cheque stood lost/misused by the opposite party no. 2 as a complaint to the said extent was made before the Station House Officer police station on 12.02.2019. He further submits that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability against the applicant. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be once the cheque stood drawn and the same stood dishonored then presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be in favour of the holder of the cheque. According to him, whatever arguments are being sought to be raised are the matter of defence consideration whereof is not required at this stage when the summoning has been made. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record, the sole question which would arise for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings at this stage. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn which was dishonored, the question as to whether what was the reason of dishonor and whether the cheque was actually lost or misused is a question of fact consideration whereof would only arise at a stage when the trial commences. This Court at this stage is not required to delve into factual aspects. Nonetheless, once the cheque stood drawn then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be always there. In absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional infirmity or infraction of the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act, this Court is no required to interfere at this stage. 6. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad