Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93520 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19873 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashish Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2, Meerut in Case No. 10957 of 2024 under Section 138 of NI Act P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut along with entire proceeding of the case. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant on 31.05.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that a cheque bearing number "533684" dated 03.04.2024 was drawn by the applicant, which on presentation in the bank was returned with the remark "payment stopped by the drawer" followed by a statutory demand notice dated 09.05.2024 which is stated to have been served upon the applicant on 10.05.2024 followed by a complaint on 31.05.2024. Thereafter on 25.07.2024, the court below proceeded to summon the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for a single moment for more than one reason, firstly the return of the cheque on the ground "payment stopped by the drawer" does not come within the ambit of Section 138 of N.I. Act, secondly, the O.P. No.2 happens to be the maternal uncle of the applicant and in connection with the marriage, a bag containing the signed cheques was there, which has been stolen by O.P. no.2 and misutilized, for which a complaint had been lodged under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC being Complaint Case no.6236 of 2024 on 09.04.2024. He submits that thus no legal enforcement, debt or liability is there and thirdly, the amount in question which is referable to the debt is time-barred. 6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the question as to whether the cheque was stolen or not and misutilized is a question of fact which might be a defence and what would be required at this stage would be the application of Section 139 of the N.I. Act which stipulates that the presumption is in favour of the holder. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 8. Apparently, as per the allegations contained in the complaint, a cheque bearing number "533684" dated 03.04.2024 of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was dishonoured on 01.05.2024, followed by a statutory demand notice dated 09.05.2024 and a complaint dated 31.05.2024. There happens to be no procedural infirmity in compliance of provisions of Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the return of the cheque with the remark "payment stopped by the drawer" does not attract the offences under Section 138 of N.I. Act is concerned, suffice is to say that law in this regard is no more res integra, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2012) 13 SCC 375 had the occasion to consider the said aspect of the matter and in para- 16, the following was observed: - "The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in NEPC Micon Ltd. (supra) that the expression "amount of money ... is insufficient" appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such "as account closed", "payment stopped", "referred to the drawer" are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the "signatures do not match" or that the "image is not found", which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act." 9. Apart from this, the question as to whether the cheque stood stolen and misutilized by O.P. No.2 is at best a defence consideration whereof would arise, when the trial continues and not at the stage of summoning. Lastly, there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the claim so sought to be raised by virtue of lodging of the proceedings is time barred. 10. Accordingly, no case for interference at this stage is made out. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has made a submission that a direction be issued to the court below for his enlargement of bail. 12. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands consigned to record while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of bail application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 13. Needless to point out that any observations made are only confined to summoning order. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad