Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6749 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 917 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard in person as well as Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 17.08.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.115721 of 2023 (Km. Riya Vs. Shivram), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kanpur Nagar. 3. Contention of applicant is that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any liability, therefore, no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out and court below has erroneously summoned him under Section 138 N.I. Act. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by applicant and submitted that from the perusal of the averments made in the impugned complaint, it is clear that in discharge of liability for payment of arrear of maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Case No.496 of 2013, the applicant had given the cheque of Rs.50,000/- which is in question in the impugned proceeding when that cheque was presented before the Bank, same was returned for insufficiency of fund, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding. 5. After hearing the applicant in person and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as on perusal of record, it appears that the applicant no.1 is the father of the opposite party no.2. There is matrimonial discord between Pinki (who is mother of opposite party no.2 and wife of applicant) as well as the applicant. The opposite party no.2 along with her mother filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Case No.496 of 2013, in which a direction was made to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Pinki and her two daughters including the opposite party no.2. When the maintenance was not paid then the opposite party no.2 through her mother filed an application to recover the arrears of maintenance, thereafter, present applicant had given a cheque of Rs.50,000/- dated 10.04.2023 to the opposite party no.2 in discharge of part payment of arrears of maintenance. That cheque was presented before the Bank on 07.06.2023 and same was returned back on 12.06.2023 with endorsement of fund insufficient. Thereafter, a registered notice was also sent on 16.06.2023 by the opposite party no.2 but despite receiving that notice, cheque amount was not paid, therefore, the complaint in question was filed. 6. From the above facts, it is clear that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of liability for payment of maintenance to opposite party no.2 and when the cheque was bounced by the Bank with endorsement fund insufficient even then the cheque amount was not paid by the applicant despite receiving demand. Therefore, prima-facie, offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out and there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding. 7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding and the present application is dismissed. 8. However, it is open for the applicant to raise all his defense before the court below, during trial. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Jitendra Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad