Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102999 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20623 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari @ Akash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Yadav,Shravan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rama Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 04.04.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.820 of 2021 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.820/2021, "Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Abhishek Tiwari Akash" Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 22.06.2021 against the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of liability, a cheque bearing number "219971" dated 09.03.2021 was drawn by the applicant for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured on 15.05.2021, a statutory demand notice was issued on 18.05.2021 and thereafter on 22.06.2021, the complaint was lodged and the applicant has been summoned on 04.04.2022 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained, particularly when the cheque itself was lost, and a complaint whereof was made on 05.02.2021, page-39 of the paper-book and signatures also mismatch, and further the signatures are not of the applicant. He submits that no legal enforceable debt or liability stands attracted so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once the cheque stood drawn, and the same was dishonoured, then presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be in favour of the holder of the cheque. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 6. Apparently, the allegations in the complaint relate to drawing of a cheque, which stood dishonoured. The question as to whether the cheque was actually lost or not or the signatures are of the applicant or not, or any fraud has been play, is the subject matter of trial. consideration whereof is not required at the stage of summoning. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is also in favour of the complainant/holder of the cheque. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. Application is rejected. 8. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant has come up with a prayer for enlargement of bail in view of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 9. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same. 10. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of 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 (supra). Order Date :- 3.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad