Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110048 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24137 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Sharma,Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 (Sunil Kumar VS Chandrapal Singh), passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 226 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant on 05.01.2022 under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to a plot, there happened to be an agreement/sale deed so executed, however, a cheque bearing number "610183" dated 25.09.2021 of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was drawn by the applicant, which on presentation in the Bank on 13.10.2021 came to be dishonoured on 19.10.2021 with remark "insufficient fund" followed by statutory demand notice and a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Thereafter, applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 N.I. Act on 21.04.2022 against which the applicant preferred a criminal revision which ultimately was dismissed on 28.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt or lilability which stands attracted in the case of applicant, particularly in view of the fact that the cheque in question, which was in relation to the conveyance of a sale deed was forcefully taken from the applicant and the applicant in this regard has also lodged first information report under Section 323, 506 IPC being FIR no.1771 of 2021. He further submits that even with respect to discrepancy in the plot number, a titimma/correction deed also stood preferred by O.P. No.2 and an Original Suit No.1031 of 2021, Chandra Pal vs. Pappu and others also came to be instituted by the O.P. No.2. Submission is that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability and further the O.P. No.2 is himself in possession of the land in question. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised, they are the matter of defence and further once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would be there in favour of holder of the cheque. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records. 6. Apparently, with respect to drawing and dishonouring of a cheque, legal notice came to be issued and thereafter the complaint stood preferred. The applicant was summoned, a revision came to be filed against the summoning order, which was rejected. The crucial question which would arise for consideration is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceeding. In so far as, the question relatable to fact as to whether the cheque was forcefully taken and misutilized by getting it dishonoured is the question of trial, which cannot be gone into at this stage. Nonetheless, the theory so sought to be propounded that O.P. No.2 is already in possession of the land, as there happens to be a titamma/correction deed, as the applicant is not liable to make said payment is a question of defence, consideration thereof would arise, when the trial commences. What the Court is concerned at the stage of summoning is the fact as to whether there has been infraction of Section 138 and 141 of the Act or not. In case, there is no infraction and the cheque stands dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there and whatever defences are there, they are liable to be taken if they are permissible and considered when the trial commences. Accordingly no case for interference is made out. 7. The application is rejected. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad