Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114977 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21691 of 2025 Applicant :- Sneha Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Yadav,Shravan Kumar Yadav,Triloki Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Triloki Nath learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. Gupta learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the Summoning Order dated 19.04.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.821 of 2021 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.821/2021,"Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Sneha Tiwari" 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 the opposite party no.2 on 22.6.2021 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that two cheques bearing no.112858 and 112857 stood drawn of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs on 5.3.2021 and 2.3.2021 which on presentation in the bank stood dishonoured on account of signatures differ on 15.5.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 18.5.2021 and the complaint on 22.6.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned on 19.4.2022. He has further submitted that first of all no debt or liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act would arise particularly when no such cheque was drawn by the applicant as he seeks to invite the attention of the Court towards the lodging of the first information report under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC on 14.9.2021 being FIR No.0435 of 2021 by the applicant against the opposite party no.2. He has also submitted that as a counterblast and retaliation the present complaint has been filed. 4. Submission is that merely because the signatures differ same would not answer the description of any offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheques stood drawn and it stood dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of two cheques for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs followed by statutory demand notice the complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2. The question as to whether the complaint is frivolous or not and whether it is the act of counterblast or retaliation post lodging of the first information report by the applicant against the opposite party no.2 is a subject matter of trial consideration whereof is not required at the summoning stage. 7. As regards the other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the remarks signature differ does not answer the description of dishonouring of the cheque is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs State Of Gujarat & Ors (2012) 13 SCC 375 in paragraph number 16 has observed as under:- "16. 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 d decision in Magma cases 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" 8 Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad