Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117792 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24325 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Israr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Tripathi,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy along with Sri Lalit Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma learned State Law Officer for the State. 3. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Learned Additional Court (N.I. Act), Bareilly as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 279 of 2024, (Ahamad Raza Vs. Mohd. Israr), under section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bareilly, pending before the Learned Additional Court (N.I. Act), Bareilly. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be filed in the month of April, 2024 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant and the opposite party no.2 were doing business jointly and they had purchased the J.C.B Machine and a Tractor Loader and the applicant herein had drawn a cheque of an amount of Rs.30,95,000/- bearing no.372603 in favour of the applicant on 15.2.2024 which on presentation in the bank on 22.2.2024 came to be dishonoured with remarks funds insufficient and the information whereof was received by the opposite party no.2 on 26.2.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 7.3.2024 and in failing to make the payment, the complaint stood lodged in April, 2024 pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned on 26.6.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He has further submitted that the applicant has obtained bail. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is a clear case of fraud being practiced by the opposite party no.2 and further while inviting attention towards Section 87 of the N.I. Act, it is contended that the applicant is entitled to be benefits in view of the provisions contained under Section 87 of the N.I. Act with respect to effect of the material alteration. Further submission is that there are already happen to be an agreement between the parties that the applicant on a 100 rupees non judicial stamp that the applicant in order to discharge his liability had issued a cheque of Rs.95,000/- bearing no.372603 dated 21.2.2024, however the opposite party no.2 interpolated and made and played fraud while enhancing the said amount which came to be dishonoured. Further submission is that even the said JCB was taken on loan from one of the private financial companies and while inviting attention towards the registration certificate it is submitted that no such amount stood payable to the opposite party no.2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on 15.3.2024 with regard to the alleged fraud a complaint was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police and thereafter a report also came to be filed by the Station House Officer on 22.3.2024 and thereafter the applicant came to have preferred an FIR on 22.10.2024 against the opposite party no.2 being FIR No.0778 of 2024 under Sections 420, 506 384 IPC 7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be the arguments with the applicant claims to be raising with respect to interpolations as well as the alterations while relying upon the 100 rupees non judicial stamp notarized statement is a matter of trial. 8. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant submits that beside the aforesaid grounds the applicant is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Seth Loon Karan Sethiya Vs. IVAN E. John 1977 AIR (SC) 336 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others 1940 0 AIR (SC) 853. 9. Further submission is that the applicant shall be contesting the trial with the all legal and factual grounds which are permissible under law including the same which have been argued and the court below be directed to consider the same. 10. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and also the stand taken by the learned counsel for the applicant, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad