Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107737 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22642 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Dubey,Surabhi Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B.Singh learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 2351 of 2023 (Rajeshwar Singh Yadav vs. Dinesh Kumar Singh), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur and the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 2351 of 2023 (Rajeshwar Singh Yadav vs. Dinesh Kumar Singh), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 5.4.2023 against the applicant with respect to an allegation that a cheque bearing no.003074 of Rs.25 lakhs stood drawn by the applicant which on presentation in the bank on 9.3.2023 came to be dishonoured on 15.3.2023 and a statutory demand notice was issued on 16.3.2023 followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 5.4.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 4.8.2023. He has further submitted that an application came to be preferred by the applicant for sending the cheque bearing no.02003074 before the Forensic Laboratory in order to determine the fact that the amounts and the figures have been filled by the opposite party no.2 or not. The said application came to be rejected by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur on 5.6.2025. 4. Questioning the said order the applicant has preferred the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no occasion for the court below to have rejected the said application particularly when the applicant was ready to incur the entire expenditure in that regard. He has further submitted that though the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder of the cheque but in order to get a fair trial an opportunity is to be accorded to the accused to get the Forensic Laboratory Report so as to determine as to whether that the instrument in question was filled up by the applicant or the opposite party no.2 complainant particularly when the allegation is that the opposite party no.2 is a history-sheeter also and on pointing out pistol, cheque was drawn. He has also submitted that no prejudice whatsoever could have been caused in any manner whatsoever in case Forensic Laboratory Report could have been obtained. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that though it is open for the applicant to take a ground which is permissible in law for getting the handwriting expert report from the Forensic Laboratory but what would be crucial in the present facts of the case are that the cheque was drawn in the year 2022 and neither in the statement under Section 251/254 of the N.I. Act there have been any such ground taken however at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. the said ground has been taken just for the dilatory tactics. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, a cheque bearing no.003074 of an amount of Rs.25 lakhs dated 3.3.2023 is alleged to have been drawn by the applicant as per the complaint which on presentation in the bank on 9.3.2023 was dishonoured on 15.3.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice on 16.3.2023 and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 5.4.2023 and the summoning of the applicant on 4.8.2023. Notably, neither at the stage under Section 251/254 of the Cr.P.C. any such ground that the cheque was filled though signed by the applicant but figures and amounts were filed by the opposite party no.2 was taken. However, for the very first time the said ground has been taken at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The court below in its order dated 5.6.2025 while negating the said claim has recorded cogent reasons and according to it one of the reasons which were in the mind of the court below was that the said cheque was also handed over in the year 2022 in the presence of the one of the witness Shyam Singh Yadav as per sweet will of the applicant. Apart from the same the Court finds that once the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are underway then it would be too late of the day to interfere at this stage. 9. There is no quarrel of the proposition of the law so sought to be canvassed by the applicant that presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act but accused is expected to get a fair trial but in the facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 10. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds which are available under law and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered with most expedition in correct perspective. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad